BUCKS COUNTY COURT ANTHONY MORELLI Defendant MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MORELLIS MOTION FOR RECONCIDERATION Ashton Sunderlin

submits this memorandum of law in support of the defendants motion to reconsider. Question of law: Did the order to shut down the site www.thepsychoexwife.com by judge Diane Gibbons inhibit defendant Morellis first amendment rights? Facts: Anthony needed an outlet to vent his frustrations stemming from his recent divorce with his wife of five years and two children and proceeding custody battle. For this Anthony created www.thepsychoexwife.com. The site was a blog described by the site as "the true account of a marriage, divorce, and subsequent custody fight between a loving man, his terroristic exwife. The site featured Anthonys own articles depicting his personal struggles from the divorce and custody battle. It also featured emails and court papers as evidence. After finding out about the site, family law judge Diane Gibbons ordered the site to be taken down. Immediately upon being ordered to remove the site Anthony did so as asked. Argument: Morelli expected his own opinions and depictions of his personal marriage with his ex-wife, would be protected speech (under the first amendment) if published online. To this statement there are valid arguments of law that prove this to be true. When considering the case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U. S. _ (2011), the rule of law applied was that forms of literary communication mediums are protected by the first amendment. In the case Justice Scalia described video games a literary communication medium because they communicate ideas -- and even social messages -through many familiar literary devices. This description in the context of a video game would more than suffice to define a written blog. In Brown Justice Scalia further argued presenting the case Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952). In This case it was held that "the basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment's command, do not vary" Scalia proceeded to articulate that this specifically applies to new communication mediums that appear over the years. In the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254(1964) the court applied the rule of law that the debate on public issues is demanded to be uninhibited by the first amendment. It was also held that this kind of speech would only be considered libelous if it was known to be false, and showed actual malice towards a public official. As Anthonys

ex-wife is not a public official any argument depicting the content of the site as libelous by law is significantly less viable as the content embodies opinions and personal accounts of a public issue (divorce).

In determining if the content of the site is libelous, the determination on whether the content could be considered fighting words is crucial. As fighting words are non-protected forms of speech by the first amendment. The case Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) is used to define the term fighting words as offensive, derisive or annoying with intent to deride, offend or anoy . Even if the content of the site had met this definition, it would not be considered fighting words, as a publication of them is not the same as the utterance by mouth. The fighting words exception on free speech has a purpose of preventing the provocation of violence by verbal means, and an important role it plays. Conclusion: For the reasons set forth by articulation of law, defendant Anthony Morelli requests this motion for the courts reconsideration on the ruling to remove the site.