So of course everyone has heard how Chris Brown attacked Rihanna. According to four magazines I saw side-by-side at Walgreens, Rihanna married Chris Brown, she is pregnant, she did not marry him and instead checked herself into an institution to help herself battle depression and cutting, and she refuses to testify against him. Regardless of the true story, the abuse got me thinking...Yes; physical abuse is awful no matter the circumstances. But what about verbal abuse between married couples? No relationship is perfect and "fighting words" are occasionally extravagantly used in public places to the entertainment of those around to hear. There are abuse hotlines, but what if the verbal abuse is two-sided? Can such arguments actually be put to the end by the law? Clearly laws against physical abuse do not change just because the crime occurs between two people in a relationship, and while the thought process along the way may differ, the outcome for verbal or written abuse is no different.
An interesting divorce case was brought to light about one year ago. William Krasnansky, then-husband to Maria Garrido, decided to blog about the going-ons of his divorce. When the wife learned of the blog, she reported it to the judge currently over-seeing their divorce. The judge then ordered Krasnansky to "take down any and all internet postings about his wife and their marriage." The judge labeled the blog as harassment, which divorce judges are able to bar during proceedings. According to the New York Times, this ruling turned an ordinary divorce into a battle of free speech over the Internet. Prior restraint was Krasnansky's defense. While a blog between two individuals not going through a divorce would have never been silenced, this case does raise the issue of a difference of the terms of free speech for people related in an intimate way as opposed to a general acquaintance or so forth. The wife believed she was justified in her wishes for the blog to be removed, as it was defamation**...but then again can't divorce in general be considered defamation of the parties involved? By extremes, if one person does not want a divorce but their spouse does and defamation becomes an issue decided in family courts, then a divorce could be prevented by the claim that the other spouse wants a divorce to purposely cause defamation to their spouse. Thus, such issues are handled in separate courts. But then...do family members and married couples live by different rules than others?
Back in the day, "crimes of passion" were leniently dealt with. If a wife walked in on her husband having an affair and stabbed him, it was considered a crime of passion and the wife could receive little to no punishment by the court. Today, it seems like the opposite occurs. When there is any reported defamation between people of an intimate nature, more serious actions are taken. After a relationship between a woman and a police office officer soured, restraining orders were filed, jobs were lost, and then in stepped the officer's lawyer to sue on the grounds of defamation. Prior to the suit, the woman, Taylor, had been talking to an acquaintance of Officer Doyle, the ex-boyfriend, when she commented that she could kill Doyle's female roommate Stuber (not in the literal sense). People generally say they "could just kill __." I guess one moral of the story is to not say such a thing when the people involved wear badges. The 911-dispatcher roommate heard of the comment and filed a restraining order and had it served to Taylor at her place of employment. Soon after, Taylor lost her job. Perhaps Stuber feared a crime of passion against her since most people would have little reaction to such a comment and perhaps give the woman some chocolate. However, the difference here is that Doyle and Taylor had been in an intimate relationship and so more aggressive actions were expected and thus dealt.
While Taylor and family claim Doyle has exposed himself inappropriately to Taylor's mother, has threatened them, and has urinated on their lawn, Doyle has filed the defamation suit because he feels the family's actions to separate themselves from him have hurt his reputation. The hearing is to be held in April. The fact that the plaintiff is an officer clearly has its impact, but it must not go unnoticed the drastic actions that have been taken against Taylor for speaking ill of Doyle.
As in all court cases, it is not the plaintiff's expectations that decide what should have been an expected outcome but the average reasonable person's expectations. The average, reasonable person expects family members and couples to fight, occasionally in a public manner.
According to the Young Lawyers Section of the Missouri Bar, civil relief can be filed for if the abused used to be the spouse of, is currently the spouse of, is related by blood, or has a child with the abuser. But once again two-way abuse is not mentioned. What can be done if someone is verbally abusing you after you abused them is never mentioned...I guess everyone just believes that solution would be for the two people to just stop talking to one another, get a divorce, or become one of those families that just talks every five to ten years. If a complaint was filed against a family or couple having an issue of a fighting-word-war, I suppose the result would just be a noise complaint or some such issue. If a court did hear a case where one person was arrested for public disturbance of peace but the argument was between a father and son, the fine would be held because when it gets down to it, the father still disturbed the peace, whether the argument was with his son or a mail man. If the son had also been using fighting words and aided in the disturbance and did not also receive a ticket, I guess his lawyer would just see him as lucky. In the end I suppose two people can just countersue each other until one finally wins or their claims get thrown out.
The People's Legal Front states about six times that fighting words inflict injury or lead to a breach of the peace. However, I do believe that people with an intimate relationship do have more of a right to use fighting words. As discussed in class, words allow for people to "let off steam" so that physical actions are not taken. Personally, I believe it is even more important for such physical abuse to be prevented in relationships than in general as such abuse is sometimes overlooked, either by those in the relationship or their friends and family. Additionally, family members or couples have more opportunity to be angered as they are generally together more than people that are not related in such a way. Through this logic, I believe that family members and those in relationships should have an understanding that fighting words will not get them arrested. While I do not believe such relation-oriented issues should be protected by an actual law, I do believe that there should be a more lenient way to deal with such things.
**The issue was proclaimed "too broad to be constitutional" by the dean of the law school at Washington Lee University. Additionally, Krasnansky had stated a mixture of fictional and true information in his blogs, including some of his wife's old journal entries. Two weeks after the order filed against Krasnansky, the court declared that the blog did not constitute harassment and that his First Amendment rights had been violated. It was also decided that the family court had no jurisdiction to rule defamation in the case of blogs.
PS- Watch out for the computer virus that's supposed to hit....Happy April Fools!....
I would have to agree with you. From personal experience, I have had many arguments, extreme arguments with my boyfriend of five years. As much as I hate disagreements, and hate arguing, I feel that in many causes it was necessary to clear up and issue, or even to make us feel better and come to some understanding of each other. And sometimes these arguments got pretty brutal- I would not say to the point of verbally abuse, and certainly not physical abuse, but they were nonetheless hurtful, and I would not want to government stepping in on my petty arguments. I think that arguing is necessary to a point- I agree with you that it lets off steam- but I think that if the arguing continues day after day, year after year, someone should be able to help put a stop to it. But that responsibility would be more of the family members or religious circles, rather than the government. Everyone has a First Amendment right to argue. Often times in arguments, like you said, fighting words are used. These are statements directed at a person, intending to cause harm, or start a fight. These words can be regulated, but I don't think they should necessarily be in regards to couples, because who is to define these fighting words? If a wife says, "you better pick up your dirty socks, you pig of a husband, or else!" If she is threatening and calling her husband names, provoking a response from him, would that be considered fighting words? I don't think it should, except in the case of physical abuse. If someone is getting physically abused, then it no longer falls under the free speech category, since it is causing physical harm to someone else. Interesting topic, Stephanie.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post! I hadn't previously thought about how relationship context should be considered when deciding what words should and should not be allowed.
ReplyDeleteYour argument is very practical. People in intimate relationships are around each other more often than people not in intimate relationships. And indeed, because these relationships are "intimate" there are heavier emotional investments in them. Heavier emotional investments, to me, suggests a greater potential for emotional outbursts and arguments, and verbal fighting. I don't think it would be a bad thing to consider this blatant reality in the legal realm.
You make a handful of interesting points. Can divorces be considered defamation? I hope not. Are laws applied unfairly to those in relationships? I agree with you that perhaps there should be a common sense understanding and leniency applied to those in relationships.
Finally, I agree with the ruling of the court. It clearly seemed like a case of prior restraint, and what that guy posts in his blog should not be regulated by government.
Maybe I have spent too much time watching the reality cop shows (such as Cops) on TruTV (and its former incarnations), but couples are subjected to restrictions on their "fightin' words". Police routinely get domestic disturbance calls (as these shows occassionally evidence)--which are normally called in because one or more concerned neighbors heard the argument (and its getting out of hand). The issue with "fightin' words" and couples is that such intense arguments often also involve some form of physical violence (not necessarily directed at a particular person), including (but not limited to) thrown objects, breaking objects, physical assault of the other person, etc. Threatening the other person is still an arrestable offense if the police feel there is probable cause that such threats could be carried out. These crimes may be pursued less vigorously than, say, a verbal (and physical) altercation between two people in a bar, (particularly given that the average human in a relationship engages in this behavior from time to time) but they still are pursued, and they are not within their free speech rights.
ReplyDelete