Will Social Media Be a 'Free Speech' War Zone for Parents Seeking to Disparage Ex-Spouses?
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently issued a ruling that, if it starts a national trend, could undermine any hope of maintaining public civility between divorcing spouses, even when a child is involved.
May 29, 2020 at 05:41 PM
6 minute read
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently issued a ruling that, if it starts a national trend, could undermine any hope of maintaining public civility between divorcing spouses, even when a child is involved. Ronnie Shak and Masha Shak were married for only 15 months, but the union produced a son, born in 2017. According to court records, Masha Shak subsequently filed an emergency motion to remove the father from the marital home because of his aggressive physical behavior, "roughly grabbing their child and throwing items at their neighbors." A judge ordered the father to vacate the home and issued temporary orders granting the mother sole custody of the child.
Soon after, Ronnie Shak began posting extremely negative and offensive comments about his son's mother on Facebook, claiming that she was attempting to prevent him from seeing the child. At one point he called her an "evil liar." He set up a GoFundMe page titled, "Help Me Keep My Son," and asked their mutual friends to unfriend her. He also shared his posts with Masha Shak's rabbi, assistant rabbi, members of her synagogue and even her business clients.
Two different judges crafted orders banning the father from posting these negative remarks about Masha Shak on social media—in the case of second order—until the child turned 14. When Ronnie Shak continued his postings without letup, Masha Shak sought a contempt citation against him.
In Texas it is not unusual for family lawyers to request that a mutual nondisparagement injunction be included in both temporary and final divorce orders. Whether these orders can be enforced depends on many factors. When there are clear, unambiguous orders, a judge is very likely to hold an ex-spouse in contempt if the orders are violated, particularly if children are involved.
Ex-spouses may choose to whack at each other all they please on social media, presenting an unedifying spectacle to all their friends and relatives. But there is a whole new level of potential harm when a child is involved. No child development expert, no therapist, no psychologist or psychiatrist will say that it is good for a child for one parent to bash the other one virtually when there is a possibility that this will impact any children involved.
The child in the Shak case, who is currently only a toddler, will quickly grow old enough to hear and understand when his friends are whispering that his parents called each other unsavory names again on Facebook. Or will mutual friends simply avoid the child for fear of angering a parent or getting entangled in the battle? Will he miss out on playdates? Will she be left out of birthday parties because no one wants to deal with her parents? Normal people generally avoid high-conflict, toxic families who are acting out in socially inappropriate ways, even when one of them may be innocent of wrongdoing.
A parent's livelihood can also be affected. Outrageous comments can alienate employers, co-workers, vendors and customers. There may be grounds for a suit for interference in business relations.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously that the nondisparagement orders in the Shak case were "an impermissible prior restraint on speech" and were therefore unconstitutional. Justice Kimberly S. Budd wrote the opinion in which she said that prior restraint is only acceptable when harm is immediate and cannot be prevented by any means other than suppressing free speech rights.
However, she added, "The potential [italics mine] impact on a child's mental health at some point in the future does not meet that high legal threshold, especially in this case where the child cannot on his own access social media and when no information has been produced showing a current link between Facebook postings and proof of an emotional harm to the child."
In other words, must Masha Shak wait until she has proof that the child has been emotionally damaged by the father's postings before she can stop him? Perhaps the judge was correct in that no evidence was presented in this case to show how children are immediately harmed when parents are permitted to behave in this fashion.
Fortunately, Texas has recognized the need to prevent the likely harm, and the form manual provided by the Family Law Section of the Texas Bar provides suggested language to use in a nondisparagement clause. The form says the following actions are not allowed: "Making disparaging remarks regarding the other party in the presence or within the hearing of the child[ren] or on any form of social media." Or "Discussing any litigation concerning the child[ren] in the presence or within the hearing of the child[ren] or on any form of social media."
What options are left for the mother in the Shak case? Perhaps she could sue for defamation. She could sue for damages to her business relations. She could seek a harassment prevention order. The family court judges in the case could communicate to the father that his constitutional decision to assault his child's mother online indicates he does not act in his child's best interests and could affect custody rulings. (Fortunately, most good parents don't need to be told this.)
Budd admonished the Shaks and other divorcing couples with children to "rise above acrimonious feelings" and "refrain from making disparaging remarks about one another." Within 24 hours following the court's ruling, Ronnie Shak, now completely unleashed, went right back to posting negative comments about Masha Shak on social media.
Susan Myres is a board-certified family law attorney at Myres & Associates. She has been practicing in Houston for over 35 years and has served in leadership positions locally, statewide and nationally. She is also the current president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEnergy Lawyers Field Client Questions as Trump Issues Executive Orders on Industry Funding, Oversight
6 minute readHolland & Knight Hires Former Davis Wright Tremaine Managing Partner in Seattle
3 minute readKirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250