Free Speech

Court Ordered Divorcing Husband Not "to Post Anything on Facebook … in Regards to This Action"

Fortunately, the California Court of Appeal has just reversed the decision, on First Amendment grounds.


From yesterday's California Court of Appeal decision in Molinaro v. Molinaro:

[T]he part of the order prohibiting Michael [Molinaro] from posting "anything about the case on Facebook" is overbroad and impermissibly infringes upon his constitutionally protected right of free speech….

To establish a valid prior restraint under the federal Constitution, a proponent has the heavy burden to show the countervailing interest is compelling, the prior restraint is necessary and would be effective in promoting this interest, and less extreme measures are unavailable. A permissible order restraining future speech "must be couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of the public order." …

Applying these principles, the court in In re Marriage of Candiotti (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) held a custody order limiting a parent's right to communicate with third parties about matters related to the custody proceeding was an unconstitutional prior restraint. There, the order prohibited a mother from disclosing negative information about her former husband's new wife to anyone except certain specified professionals. The Candiotti court recognized that courts "are given broad authority to supervise and promote the welfare of children" and may constitutionally order parents to refrain from disparaging their former spouse in front of their children. However, the court observed the challenged order "went further, actually impinging on a parent's right to speak about another adult, outside the presence of the children."

The court held the order was overbroad in this respect and constituted an undue prior restraint of speech under the California Constitution, reasoning the order "would prevent [the mother] from talking privately to her family, friends, coworkers, or perfect strangers about her dissatisfaction with her children's living situation." Although the trial court "certainly ha[d] the power to prevent [the mother] from undermining [the father's] parental relationship by alienating the children from [the stepmother]," the Candiotti court found the challenged order to be "much more far-reaching, aimed at conduct that might cause others, outside the immediate family, to think ill of [the stepmother]." The court explained: "Such remarks by [the mother] may be rude or unkind. They may be motivated by hostility. To the extent they are libelous, they may be actionable. But they are too attenuated from conduct directly affecting the children to support a prior restraint on [the mother's] constitutional right to utter them."

The same reasoning applies to the part of the restraining order prohibiting Michael from posting information about the case to Facebook. The record shows Michael's Facebook posts were not specifically directed to the minor children, but in many cases invited comments from Michael's adult friends and extended family, some of whom urged him not to dwell on the divorce, while others suggested he seek legal representation. Moreover, although the trial court plainly had the power to prohibit Michael from disparaging Bertha in the children's presence (see In re Marriage of Hartmann (2010)), the order here, like the order in Candiotti, was "much more far-reaching," proscribing speech only peripherally related to the case and speech that might, at worst, "cause others, outside the immediate family, to think ill" of Bertha.

Indeed, most of Michael's earlier posts were of this variety?they expressed his apparent despair about the divorce and his separation from the children, but did not directly disparage Bertha or openly seek to alienate her from the children. Posts of this sort are "too attenuated from conduct directly affecting the children to support a prior restraint on [Michael's] constitutional right to utter them."

"It is certainly in the best interests of any children of divorce that the adults in their lives act in a mature and courteous manner"; however, where a restraint on the freedom of speech is concerned, the restriction must be necessary and narrowly tailored to promoting those interests. The part of the restraining order prohibiting Michael from posting about the case on Facebook does not meet this test. We conclude it is overbroad, constituting an invalid prior restraint, and must be stricken from the domestic violence restraining order.

NEXT: Whatever Happened to the Arab Uprisings?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ae fond kiss, and then (CENSORED) sever;
    Ae fareweel, and then forever!
    Deep in heart-wrung tears I’ll pledge (CENSORED),
    Warring sighs and groans I’ll wage (CENSORED).
    Who shall say that Fortune grieves him,
    While the star of hope she leaves him?
    Me, nae cheerfu’ twinkle lights me;
    Dark despair around benights me.

    I’ll ne’er blame my partial fancy,
    Naething could resist (CENSORED);
    But to see (CENSORED);
    (CENSORED), and love forever.
    Had we never (CENSORED) sae kindly,
    Had we never (CENSORED sae blindly,
    Never met?or never (CENSORED)?
    We had ne’er been broken-hearted.

    Fare thee weel, (CENSORED)

  2. Hit the road (NAME CENSORED) and don’t you come back
    No more, no more, no more, no more
    Hit the road (CENSORED) and don’t you come back
    No more

    You’re the (COMMENT ON SPOUSE’S QUALITIES CENSORED) that I’ve ever have seen
    I guess if you say so
    I’ll have to pack my things and go

    Now baby, listen baby, don’t you treat me this way
    Well, I guess if you say so
    I’ll have to pack my things and go

  3. “The injunction won’t allow me to discuss the judge, so I will discuss the weather instead.”

  4. ” outside the presence of the children. ”

    So exactly how will the children be kept off facebook?

    1. That is (or should be) a non-issue. In the case above, the mother is being prohibited from saying bad things about the dad and stepmom. Three scenarios arise – children are in the mother’s custody and control, children are in the father’s custody and control, children are unsupervised.

      While the children are in the mother’s custody, she is prohibited from saying bad things in front of the children. To the extent that she wrote those bad things down on paper, she would be obligated to put those papers away while the children are around. By the same token, she will have to block facebook on her computer(s) while the children are around.

      While the children are in the father’s custody, the father also has the unilateral authority to block his own children’s access to facebook. Any number of easily-available apps enable such parental controls.

      So that only leaves the times when the children are unsupervised. These kinds of orders do not generally get handed out when the children are teenagers. These kinds of orders are put in place while the children are sufficiently impressionable that it will make a difference in parenting. And if the dad is letting his young children online without proper supervision, that’s a more serious problem than the mom saying some bad things. It’s also not the non-custodial mom’s problem to fix.

  5. The Court of Appeal opinion in Molinaro v. Molinaro would be quite useful for family law lawyers as well as family law judges, in part because of the First Amendment limitation on domestic violence restraining orders and in part because there are other useful lessons. But Molinaro was not certified for publication.

    Prof. Volokh ought to ask the Court of Appeal to publish Molinaro v. Molinaro. The procedure to request publication of unpublished opinions is laid out in California Rules of Court Rule 8.1120.

  6. I was hopeless at first because i never believed that there is going to be anything that i could do to bring back my girlfriend. With all the work i was facing at the moment and plans to buy a house where we are going to live together, I had never expected that she was going to leave me. But Dr.Zabaza’s love spell made my dreams come true and perfect manifestation. As of today my girlfriend has moved in with me and she has really stopped a lot of negative attitudes, I am very pleaded with Dr.Zabaza’s love spell and i will gladly recommend his services to everyone that needs help in fixing relationship problem. His details are What App/Call +2348182620374 or email:

Please to post comments