S. S., et al. v. S. B.

Petitioners Richard Ducote and Victoria McIntyre are attorneys representing Petitioner S.S., the mother of a now 14-year-old son, in a Pennsylvania child custody case. After S.S. lost custody to the father, Respondent S.B., and the ruling was affirmed on appeal, at S.B.’s urging the trial court issued a “gag order” against all three Petitioners forbidding them to: “speak publicly or communicate about this case including, but not limited to print and broadcast media, on-line or web-based communications, or inviting the public to view existing on-line or web-based publications”; and “direct or encourage third parties to speak publicly about this case including, but not limited to, print and broadcast media, on-line or web-based communications…” The order further enjoined S.S. from using her own name in any public legislative testimony, and all Petitioners from saying anything publicly that would in any manner “tend to identify” the child or the parents. Finally, Petitioners were ordered to remove all public postings with “information about this case.” However, no such “gag order” was imposed on S.B. and his attorney. The question presented is: Is such a “gag order” an unconstitutionally vague and overbroad prior restraint and content-based restriction violating Petitioners’ First Amendment free speech rights?