12.28.12: The unconstitutional censorship of an entire post regarding what I saw as unethical tactics in lawyer Timothy Geiszler's attempt to have my mother declared incompetent in July 2009 was affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court and, as of December 26th, 2012, a stay of the injunction is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Per its user agreement, my web host had a right to discontinue my account if the offending content was not removed. I had a deadline of December 31st, 2012 to remove it, and Justice Kennedy is not going to be able to issue a decision until Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at the earliest. Although I would have appreciated their waiting until Justice Kennedy had the opportunity to consider a stay of the injunction, as for the moment the post was "libelous" (though without due process or any application of the legal standards for libel law), the host was within its rights to cancel my account if I did not remove the content. Web hosts and bloggers are put into a difficult position when State Supreme Courts don't stay injunctions against speech that (as far as this author is concerned) are contrary to controlling federal decisions about censorship.
Because the Montana Supreme Court did not issue a stay pending my petition to the U.S Supreme Court, I have been censored. My constitutional rights have been violated and continue to be as long as I am prohibited from publishing speech that has been enjoined. The content was going to be removed no matter what. By capitulating to the demand of the web host I could mitigate the damage of the censorship because the company would have canceled my account, erasing all of my entries. If I had waited for that to happen, I would have had to manually copy the entries onto another site in addition to being censored. Further, to the degree that the site promotes accountability and transparency, I would have lost all the work I did promoting specific entries and the site in general.
I don't like that I was put into a position to have had to have create this site (certainly, it wasn't the "brand" I was after), and have learned much since and cringe when looking over some of the posts. I wrote to survive and protect myself and as embarrassing as it was and is, terrible things were allowed to happen to my family. I'm not going to let shame about who I was or what I thought five or even 2.5 years ago cover up what we went through. So, if the stay is approved, I will repost the original.
If you are interested in the issue of lawyers using incompetency as a tactic, more information can be found at http://lawyersattemptingincompetency.blogspot.com/.