<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Judge&#8217;s order: do not write about this public official ever again	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/02/judges-order-write-public-official-ever/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/02/judges-order-write-public-official-ever/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:27:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: mojo		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/02/judges-order-write-public-official-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-201324</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mojo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:27:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=36404#comment-201324</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Just a TAD over-broad, there, judgie-wudgie.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a TAD over-broad, there, judgie-wudgie.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: John Burgess		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/02/judges-order-write-public-official-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-201284</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Burgess]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 03:21:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=36404#comment-201284</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I might settle for a 10-question, multiple-choice test on the Constitution. Passing with a 10/10 score is required to move onto the next stage of confirmation.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I might settle for a 10-question, multiple-choice test on the Constitution. Passing with a 10/10 score is required to move onto the next stage of confirmation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: No Name Guy		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/02/judges-order-write-public-official-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-201282</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[No Name Guy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:06:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=36404#comment-201282</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Ursula Ungaro, please report to remedial 1st Amendment Class immediately.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ursula Ungaro, please report to remedial 1st Amendment Class immediately.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mark Hartzler		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/02/judges-order-write-public-official-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-201275</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Hartzler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2013 20:57:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=36404#comment-201275</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Even with a default judgment, the Court&#039;s permanent injunction restraining Joseph from future communications regarding Lamothe and Baker appears unconstitutional. This isn&#039;t a case during wartime or involving obscene material, but allegations of damage to a business and personal reputations. In their motion for a preliminary injunction (available on PACER), Lamothe and Baker said they didn&#039;t seek a preliminary injunction that would constitute a prior restraint as they understood the limits of the injunctive relief available, but only sought removal of the three, subject articles. When the case went into default, plaintiffs went for the whole enchilada and the judge signed off on it. I suspect Joseph could get the injunction vacated. But he lives in New York and they sued in Florida, so he may have lacked the resources to defend against this federal action.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even with a default judgment, the Court&#8217;s permanent injunction restraining Joseph from future communications regarding Lamothe and Baker appears unconstitutional. This isn&#8217;t a case during wartime or involving obscene material, but allegations of damage to a business and personal reputations. In their motion for a preliminary injunction (available on PACER), Lamothe and Baker said they didn&#8217;t seek a preliminary injunction that would constitute a prior restraint as they understood the limits of the injunctive relief available, but only sought removal of the three, subject articles. When the case went into default, plaintiffs went for the whole enchilada and the judge signed off on it. I suspect Joseph could get the injunction vacated. But he lives in New York and they sued in Florida, so he may have lacked the resources to defend against this federal action.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Scott Jacobs		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/02/judges-order-write-public-official-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-201256</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Jacobs]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2013 06:39:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=36404#comment-201256</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Dear judges,

Prior restraint of speech is only allowed in very narrow instances - &quot;someone might say mean things&quot; isn&#039;t one of them.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear judges,</p>
<p>Prior restraint of speech is only allowed in very narrow instances &#8211; &#8220;someone might say mean things&#8221; isn&#8217;t one of them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
