{"id":173042,"date":"2018-07-24T23:52:34","date_gmt":"2018-07-25T03:52:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=173042"},"modified":"2018-07-24T23:52:34","modified_gmt":"2018-07-25T03:52:34","slug":"maine-supreme-court-facebook-posts-violate-no-contact-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2018\/07\/24\/maine-supreme-court-facebook-posts-violate-no-contact-order\/","title":{"rendered":"Maine supreme court: Facebook posts violate no contact order"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court says Tuesday it rejects Richard Heffron III’s argument that his Facebook posts didn’t constitute contact, that his posts are a protected form of speech, and that he wasn’t told that social media posts violated the order. (Photo: Marco Pak\u00f6eningrat\/Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

PORTLAND, Maine \u2014 \u00a0Maine’s highest court agrees that a man’s social media posts violate a protection order.<\/p>\n

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court says Tuesday it rejects Richard Heffron III’s argument that his Facebook posts didn’t constitute contact, that his posts are a protected form of speech, and that he wasn’t told that social media posts violated the order.<\/p>\n

The Bath man has been sentenced to 21 days in jail for violating the no-contact order.<\/p>\n

Heffron and the subject of the no-contact order are no longer Facebook \u201cfriends\u201d but still have \u201cfriends\u201d in common. In the posts, Heffron referred to her and made threats against her.<\/p>\n

In its ruling, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court says that Heffron’s communications \u201cfell short of those that deserve constitutional protection.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

PORTLAND, Maine \u2014 \u00a0Maine’s highest court agrees that a man’s social media posts violate a protection order. The Maine Supreme …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":116487,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-173042","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-technology","mauthors-the-associated-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173042","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=173042"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173042\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/116487"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173042"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173042"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173042"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}