Most interesting in this case is, that, even if the FSO is absolutely correct about what the mother said about him, he is still very likely to lose this case. The reason is he forgot the "audacity factor" the other hidden party to this case, and never to forget that the public court system is controlled by the "audacity factor," whether he likes it or not.3-4-2011 Washington:
TACOMA, Wash. -- A convicted sex offender is suing the mother of a child he had inappropriate contact with because he says she wrote negative things about him on her blog.
Patrick Rojas, 26, plead guilty in 2007 to a gross misdemeanor for contact with a minor for immoral purposes. But Danielle Schneider says that charge didn't come close to describing what Rojas did to her 11-year-old child. Schneider decided to blog about it and warn others.
"I have gone outside of myself in hopes that something redeeming would come out my family's nightmare," Schneider wrote. "I just felt like we needed to tell our story so that that community could know who they were dealing with to protect themselves."
Rojas was the pastor's son at Schneider's church and often visited their home. He is now classified as a level two sex offender in Washington. But in court documents, his attorney claims Rojas is embarrassed by the blog and can't get employment because of it.
Schneider says her family can't afford another court case. She says she offered to take the site down but Rojas' attorney refused.
"The audacity that the person who abused my child and changed the course of our family and our life was suing us," said Schneider.
Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Linquist says he's never seen a case quite like this.
The civil division of the Prosecutor's Office says there are factors in the case that will likely need to be established. The first is whether everything on the blog is true and whether it is public record.
Rojas' attorney did not return calls for comment. He's asking Rojas be paid unspecified damages. ..Source.. by KING 5 News
2 comments:
Freedom of speech is protected as long as she is telling the truth.
If we don't protect her constitutional rights, we can't expect our own to be protected...
and vice versa.
I'm not sure the issue is Free Speech. The law also protects certain information from becoming public, or prevents someone from sharing information publicly. That is why we are against a public Registry.
After all, do we really want random individuals to publish information about us?
Post a Comment