Politics news and discussion on TalkFuse.
May Court Order Parent to “Immediately Cease All Disparagement of” Other Parent “via Social Media”?
A Georgia appeals court has sent a child custody case back to the trial court to consider whether an order barring a mother from disparaging the child’s father violates the First Amendment. The ruling matters because it raises the constitutional limits of restricting a parent’s speech, including comments made on social media.
The trial court had ordered the mother to stop making disparaging remarks about the father “via social media or other means” and adopted a parenting plan saying neither parent would speak badly of the other or their family. The appeals court did not decide whether those restrictions were unconstitutional; it vacated the speech injunction, an award of attorney fees and a child support order, and instructed the lower court to address the First Amendment issue.
In short
- Georgia’s appeals court vacated a mother’s speech restriction.
- The trial court must consider the First Amendment issue.
- The ruling did not decide whether the restriction was unconstitutional.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
A court may have a legitimate interest in protecting a child from being drawn into parental conflict, especially if public or repeated disparagement harms the child or undermines a workable parenting arrangement. A narrowly tailored restriction, based on evidence and limited to conduct that affects the child, could serve that interest while preserving the parents’ ability to express their views more broadly.
The case against
An order barring a parent from disparaging the other “via social media or other means” may reach protected speech well beyond what is needed to protect a child. Broad or vague restrictions can chill lawful criticism and give courts too much discretion over private disputes, so any limit should meet demanding First Amendment standards.