Divorcing parents have a right to post their stories

The acrimonious split of Masha and Ronnie Shak ended up where many divorces do these days — on Facebook.

As the proceedings unfolded, Ronnie Shak offered a running commentary on social media, shared with the couple’s rabbi, assistant rabbi and members of their synagogue, court documents show.

He created a Gofundme page titled “Help me KEEP MY SON.” He called his exwife an “evil liar.” He illustrated the posts with a video of their 1-year-old son, and told their friends to unfriend her.

That was until a probate court judge banned Ronnie Shak from posting on social media about his divorce, a common practice known as a nondisparagement order.

A ruling this past week by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, stemming from the Shaks’ divorce, found such bans to be unconstitutional, a decision that could have broad implications in the state.

“As important as it is to protect a child from the emotional and psychological harm that might follow from one parent’s use of vulgar or disparaging words about the other, merely reciting that interest is not enough to satisfy the heavy burden” of restricting speech, Justice Kimberly S. Budd wrote in a 13-page ruling.

Jennifer M. Lamanna, a lawyer who represented Ronnie Shak in the appeal, called the ruling a “game changer” because family and probate judges in the state frequently give such orders.

“There are thousands of these out there, which is why this is, for Massachusetts purposes, a landmark ruling,” she said. “People ask for them routinely, and they are just handed out.”

She said the orders, used for decades to control disparaging speech, have been expanded in recent years to focus on social media.

Under such orders, she said, “my client could write a nasty letter to everyone he knows, but he’s not allowed to put it up on social media. You can whisper in your synagogue, make nasty remarks about your exwife, but you can’t put it up on Facebook.”

Masha Shak’s attorney, Richard M. Novitch, said the ruling had an immediate, negative effect, prompting Ronnie Shak to resume his postings on social media. “Within the last 24 hours of the Shak case being issued by the SJC, he’s right back at it, blowing up on social media,” he said.

While Novitch called the decision “constitutionally sound,” he said that “common sense would suggest that children should be insulated from the combat between parents.”

“It will give license to a lot of bad actors to say what they want, regardless of where and when and the circumstances,” he said.

The case underscored the role social media can play in modern divorce, as dueling parties try to win support from their circle of acquaintances.

Shortly after filing for divorce and seeking to remove Ronnie Shak from their shared home, Masha Shak filed a motion to prohibit him from posting disparaging remarks about her on social media. Two family court judges complied, with the second, George F. Phelan, issuing an order preventing Ronnie and Masha Shak from posting “any disparagement of the other party” on social media until their son reached age 14.

It also banned the parents from posting photographs of their son in poses the judge considered inappropriate.

“The court finds that the father’s posing, taking and posting of the photo of the parties’ child (then less than 1 year old) with a cigarette in his mouth was in poor taste, even if intended as a joke, and causes the Court to question the father’s maturity,” the judge wrote.

But Phelan also put the order on hold, to be reviewed on constitutional grounds by the Supreme Judicial Court.

Ruth A. Bourquin, a senior attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union, the co-author of an amicus brief supporting Ronnie Shak, said she was relieved by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling.

“We’re so grateful that the SJC reiterated the First Amendment principles, and recognized that they applied here,” she said. “Having a government actor say you can say this, and not say that, is a somewhat scary alternative.”

A