It doesn't take a modern law degree to read the Constitution or to understand what it say. The words were carefully chosen, the meaning clear at the time and until the appointed members of the US Supreme Court tinker with the nuances, almost all Americans "get it". But apparently not all state court judges get it.
“Father Shall Take Down That Web Site and Shall Never on Any Public Media Make Any Reference to Mother At All,”
Eugene Volokh • July 14, 2011 10:15 pm
“nor any reference to the relationship between mother and children, nor shall he make any reference to his children other than ‘happy birthday’ or other significant school events.” That’s the text of a judge’s oral order in Morelli v. Morelli, No. A06-04–60750-C (Diane Gibbons, J., Bucks Cty., Pa. June 6, 2011). If the father says anything about the mother in public, he could be sent to jail for contempt of court. The order isn’t limited to banning libelous statements (though I think even such a much narrower ban would itself pose constitutional problems, especially under Pennsylvania law), nor is it even limited to statements about minor children (though even that sort of order strikes me as constitutionally impermissible). Rather, the court order categorically orders the removal of a Web site, and prohibits all public statements — factually accurate or not — by one person about another person.
We elect judges in Kentucky. We must never give up that right, and we must pay very close attention to the mindset of those who would sit in judgement of our lives and liberty.
This order strikes me as a very clear violation of the rights protected by the First Amendment. I hope your mind has not gotten so mushy that it strikes you any other way.