What a shitty article. The slideshow was confusing af on mobile. In any case...
The order said: “The Defendant shall perform no act to intimidate any person known to him or her to be a co-defendant or witness in this case or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice. The above shall include, but are not limited to, posts on social media or reposts of posts made by another individual on social media.”
So he was limited in his posts on social media, limited because he was ordered not to intimidate witnesses or obstruct justice? And that limitation is seen as so broad, given his posts, that it's tantamount to banning him from social media?
"Well if I can't intimidate witnesses I might as well not be able to post at all ..."