William Krasnansky, author of LookAtMyPugs, has been ordered by the Vermont family court to stop blogging his divorce and to remove “any and all Internet postings” about his wife and their marriage. When I saw the article in our paper today I figured anyone who had LookAtMyPugs as his blog name was worth a look-see, and yeah, he has cute pugs. His blog posts are also written as autobiographical fiction, with this large disclaimer:

He does claim it as autobiographical fiction…but still. This entry is a timeline of a painful an difficult marriage over a number of years. It’s also an accounting of financial details that would relevant to a divorce proceeding that has turned as acrimonious as this one apparently has.

Here’s the story according to the Times: In 2006, Krasnansky and his estranged wife sold everything and moved to Vermont so she could follow a new career path. Referring to opposing counsel as “Ms Incompetent”, he chronicles the journey from San Francisco to Vermont with special focus on the financial details and a few juicy infidelities along the way.

Assuming that it is autobiographical and whatever details have been changed are likely not large enough to disguise anyone from knowing who Ms. Incompetent and her client are. If it’s true is it defamatory? Isn’t he writing about his life, his pain, and his soon-to-be ex-spouse’s contribution to that?

To me, ordering him to remove his postings when he has not used his ex-wife’s name (or her attorney’s name), and when he is writing about events which are in the center of his life experience does infringe on his right to free speech. I write about my family here and while I try and keep it positive or at least not negative, I’ve written a couple of posts about my father in particular which I could be forced to remove if I followed the logic of this judge. And they’re true. If they’re true, how can they be defamatory? If I had to, I could produce sworn witnesses who would affirm their truth. I’m guessing Krasnansky can, too.

In the comments to the NY Times article, the majority seem to be supporting free speech, with some dissenters. One writes:

However, the internet is a strange mixture of public airways and private thoughts. People rarely have concern about speech in phone conversations, but the internet has the problem of permanence, bringing ephemeral thoughts into print, instantly. “Ahimsa”, is about the only rule I can think of, “avoid harming others”.

Another writes this:

Speech of this nature is already regulated. It’s found under libel law. If it can be shown to be false or misleading she can sue. If the content is truthful I don’t understand the beef. This judge should get a grip on what the Constitution is all about.

What gives here? Should this guy have to remove his fictitious account of his divorce or is the judge wrong? What do you think? Would you blog a divorce online? Would chronicling events that are true be an act of libel?

Technorati Tags: blogs, blogging, free speech, defamation, libel, new york times, lookatmypugs, divorce, legal, law