why not? >> i have to agree with her. if we let this web site stand, we're going to have cyber-bullies who grew up to be bloggers. this is not fair. granted, he might have a first amendment right to speak his piece, but when you're inside family court and you're dealing with children in child custody, you have to act in the best interests of those children and this, megyn, clearly does not do that. megyn: but there was no evidence that the children saw the web site, nor was he naming her. so to me, what was this judge thinking? >> well, we all know that he's behind it now. and, look, these things have text cls -- tentacles, and some other parent's going to figure it out, and little johnny's going to go to school and talk about it to the children. come on, what's really motivating this father? shouldn't he spend more time throwing a ball in the backyard request his kids -- megyn: he is trying to protect the world. i'm joking because what he writes about her is really vile,