Sara Stout Ashcraft, BridgeTower Media Newswires
Recently, a well-known online/ radio conspiracy theorist has caused a media flutter that has nothing - and everything - to do with his public persona. For three decades Alex Jones has intrigued and offended listeners with bombastic rhetoric regarding a variety of alleged conspiracies, including claims that Bill Gates' foundation that helps minority students go to college is secretly a eugenics program, that the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting was a hoax by anti-gun groups, and that a Washington pizza shop was the center of a Hillary Clinton-operated sex abuse ring - a claim that motivated a man to drive from North Carolina to Washington, D.C., and go to a pizza restaurant armed with a rifle and handgun.
Now, however, Jones' public persona is causing problems for him in a custody battle with his former wife, who asserts that his shows are proof of his unfitness to parent their children - unsurprising to family law practitioners, Jones claims that the children's mother is the unfit parent. Jones' counsel contends that their client is actually producing "performance art" and that his overblown online persona (which exhibits yelling, crying, and even growling) is just a "character" he plays and his work consists of "humor" and "sarcasm." While Alex Jones himself has not owned up to having a created persona, he told the Texas court that he is basically the same person he is on radio and online but that the behavior he exhibits there is not how he interacts once he is home. Jones claimed that he is not a "scripted persona."
While most parents in custody disputes do not have such well-known public personas as Alex Jones' to haunt them in court, many do have an online presence that could damage custody claims. As family lawyers we often find that our clients do not seem to really understand that posting experiences and opinions online can result in being hit over the head with these very things once in court.
Mentioning to clients the need to be circumspect regarding what is put on Facebook often results in the client insisting that only "friends" can see their posts. Experience has shown over and over again that people who a client regards as a friends may contain some "frenemies" who will absolutely be thrilled to tell the other party all about the client's new girlfriend or new job as a researcher in Antarctica. And even true friends often share the client's online content with others who may have an unexpected connection with the opposing party.
It would behoove matrimonial and family practitioners to be more out front in making sure the client is aware of how damaging some online posts can be - even if the client him or herself thinks the information is totally innocuous. For example, even if the client is careful about what he or she posts on Facebook, friends can write things on the client's wall that will harm the client's position.
A client who is keeping a new boyfriend on the lowdown may suddenly find out that the boyfriend is so excited about his new relationship that he is posting photos and comments on the client's wall - photos and comments that find their way to the client's husband's attorney. And even if the clients themselves are circumspect, their family members may well not be. In fact, the family members may purposely look to hurt the other party by letting him or her know that their family member is doing just fine with a new relationship involving a well-known porn star.
While Facebook is usually singled out as the major source of damaging allegations, online chatrooms and opinion posts can also provide ammunition to the other party - and photos can be worth many thousands of in-court words. Perhaps the Statement of Clients Rights and Responsibilities should be updated to let our clientele know each may be called upon to answer for his or her own online behavior.
-----
Sara Stout Ashcraft is a partner in Ashcraft, Franklin, Young & Peters LLP. She concentrates her practice in the areas of matrimonial and family law.
Published: Fri, May 05, 2017
