Regina Rini thinks through the ethics of a sentence where a man was forced to either go to jail or "post an apology – one written for him by the magistrate – on his Facebook wall every single day for one month":
People see their social media profiles as extensions of themselves, in a way that they do not see a traditional letter, even one issued in their name. It therefore seems that much more threatening to be compelled to utter someone else’s words through Facebook.
Hence [great] outcry directed at [defendent Mark] Byron’s enforced apology. In fact, I’m inclined to think that the outcry reveals an overly sensitive response. It isn’t entirely accurate to suggest that Byron was compelled to make claims he rejects. Presumably the magistrate’s intention was to permit Byron to make a sincere apology, and provided him with the text in order to avoid mealy-mouthed deflection. If Byron disputes the substance of the remarks, he ought not publish them. He ought to accept his alternative punishment: jail time. He has, after all, been found in contempt of a court order keeping him from threatening and abusive behaviour. According to reports, he is being justly punished – he has simply been given the opportunity to limit that punishment by exhibiting contrition.
The Dish 