Slashdot Mirror
Facebook User Arrested For a Poke
nk497 writes "A woman in Tennessee has been arrested for poking someone over Facebook. Sharon Jackson had been banned by courts from 'telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating' with the apparent poke recipient, but just couldn't hold back from clicking the 'poke' button. She now faces a sentence of up to a year in prison."
I hope she enjoys getting poked in the pokey.
The system works!
Stupid people & social networks.
The current generation of people will soon realize they have no privacy because of these kinds of sites.
...in the pokey?
POKE! POKE! POKE!
A person had a protective order that was allegedly violated. That user was arrested and is getting their due process. News at 11.
redefining "pokie"....as in, she's spending some quality time in the state/county pokie.
still....a "poke" on facebook is synonymous to a wave in a public place. Technically it is a form of communicating but I think it's overkill.
Besides...don't we have bigger fish to fry?
Interviewer: Ms. Jackson, how have been your life since you was prohibited from comunicating?
Sharon Jackson: ...
The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
I guess a 'poke' falls under the broad category of "communicating". But it still seems a little heavy-handed. Even then, I guess she should've known better.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
There is a restraining order in force that says "no contact". No contact on a restraining order means just that...NO contact. Just because its a "poke" doesn't mean it doesn't count. Haul her stupid ass in and make her face what ever consequences were specified in the original order.
No sympathy what so ever. The stupid deserve what they get.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
That last poke pushed the "victim" over the edge!
The court order prohibited communication between the two directly or indirectly. A poke is a form of communication that was recognised by the court as being in violation of the order. The order its self could be wrong but the interpretation of the poke as being a form of communication and thus breaching the court order is correct.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Restraining orders aren't jokes. If the poker really was the person subject to the restraining order (and not someone else spoofing), she deserves whatever punishment would have come her way if she had telephoned, dropped by in person, or in any other, more conventional way, violated the order.
am I the only one who went to facebook and was disappointed when the "filter by location" thing returned on results on Sharon Jackson from tennessee? I wanted to poke her (can you even poke random people who aren't your "friends"? I don't even know, this is the first time I intentionally go to facebook hoping I'll find something interesting there)
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
a poke got you infinite lives, not arrested. /get off my 8-bit lawn
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
it's only "newsworthy" because it involves a new technology. examine the underlying issues: a woman is prevented legally from contacting another woman. she does so. so she faces jail time. beginning and end of story
what does it matter HOW she contacted the other person? knock on door? pen and paper? ham radio? smoke signals? would the communication channel change any of the issues here? not in the least. and yet its all over the press, front page slashdot. why? because it involves facebook. huh?
let me make my point another way: "videogames make people violent." complete bullshit, right?
in fact, overall societal violence has gone DOWN in the years since videogames have grown in use. and its not like the ancient romans were peaceful pastoral sheep farmers who knew nothing of this fancy modern invention called "violence". there simply is no causative connection between videogame use (the new scary unknown technology) and violence. if anything, violent videogames are cathartic and substitute for real world violence. and yet, the fact that the columbine shooters played doom is supposed to be instructive to us
its not instructive about anything. millions played doom and didn't start walking around the world like it was a fps. 99.99% of us have a pretty strong ability to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. the 0.01% who can't tell the difference between reality and violence might be set off by doom, but if doom never existed, something else would set them off: their psychology is the causative agent, not the videogame. mankind has been been clubbing each other over the head since before we could even talk, never mind invented writing or media of any kind
people have a tendency to look at new technology and see in it the origins of ancient sins. its a strange bias, and i don't understand it, but its a very real phenomenon. and its not a "media" created phenomenon (at the risk of getting recursive in my argument). the idea sells: people really believe this causative connection between new media and ancient sins, for some reason i don't understand why
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
TFA didn't imply that the accuser furnished any actual proof of this. Is facebook required to hand over their "poke logs"?
1) File a restraining order
2) Download Firebug and alter web page
3) ??
4) Proof-it
Existing law covered new technology. It doesn't have to have a "cyber stalking" law. It was still harassment... same as mailing a postcard or leaving a sticky note.
SIG: HUP
How can they be 100% sure it was the restrainee that did the poking?
(Yes, I'm serious.)
If restraining orders include Internet contact, then it means you can send someone to jail if you can forge a packet from their machine. That's really scary. Sure the restrainee shouldn't have done whatever they did to get the restraining order in the first place, but making it so anyone in the world can send them to jail seems excessive.
Also, what if they're both bidding on the same online auction? What if they're both Anonymous Cowards on /. ? What if they meet by accident on an online game? Does teabagging in Halo violate the restraining order?
I admit I don't know what this woman did exactly to get the restraining order, but I've been a victim of harassment. Even though a Facebook poke is a pretty negligible sort of contact, the psychological toll is takes on who she is being barred from communicating with could still be pretty great. I know that just seeing a photo of the person who was doing things to me was enough to make my pulse race and my stomach churn. Poking someone on Facebook after a restraining order tells the victim, "I still have ways to get to you." I'm glad she's being prosecuted.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
Does teabagging in Halo violate the restraining order?
Ah, the great questions of the universe...
Dumb questions all answered by real life restraining order laws.
This doesn't mean they need to create new laws for "e-this, or cyber-that" just that they have to do due diligence to confirm the guilt of the accused.
This is not the funny you're looking for.
How can they be 100% sure it was the restrainee that did the poking?
(Yes, I'm serious.)
If restraining orders include Internet contact, then it means you can send someone to jail if you can forge a packet from their machine. That's really scary. Sure the restrainee shouldn't have done whatever they did to get the restraining order in the first place, but making it so anyone in the world can send them to jail seems excessive.
You'd be amazed with what you can do with a piece of paper, a typewriter, an envelope, and a stamp. Just because it involves the Internet, doesn't mean it's ground that hasn't been covered before.
Also, what if they're both bidding on the same online auction? What if they're both Anonymous Cowards on /. ? What if they meet by accident on an online game? Does teabagging in Halo violate the restraining order?
What if they're both submitting write-in bids to a well-established auction house? What if they're both writing commentary to their local newspaper? What if they're both competitive Scrabble players climbing through the ranks of the local Scrabble circuit? As for teabagging - that's the sort of immature behavior that leads to retraining orders as it is. Once again - this isn't scary or even all that novel. What's scary is that people will treat it as if it is.
What about some automatic ticker thing. Or just a facebook update that gets sent to the front page of that person who has a restraining order (but still friended with) against the updater?
(Playing devil's advocate here)
Yes we all agree that the woman should get locked up for breaching a restraining order .. IF SHE DID IT.
The question I have is how do you prove this?
She could have simply been stalking her victim on facebook and her cat walked across the keyboard at an inappropriate moment et voila one cat induced restraining order breach.
Any number of things from another household member to a hacked computer could have done this, so what is the level of proof required to lock her away. I hope that it is not just "well she says she didn't do it, but she was in the house with the computer at the time - just forget the fact that other people were in the same house as well".
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
The problem with this scenario is in order to "poke" someone on facebook, you have to be on their friends list. If this person was that concerned about having any contact with their stalker, why was the stalker on their friends list? Don't get me wrong -- I don't think the lady should have "poked" this person or otherwise had any contact with the person. But my question is still valid.
Facebook only allows you to poke your friends, right? With a restraining order in place, how did these two have such a relationship in the first place?
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
I thought you could only poke a friend, which would mean they both agreed to add each other and thus allow interaction. If the facebook friendship was initiated before the initial court order wouldn't that require that it be ended by both parties and the act of keeping it would mean there was an agreement between both parties ? That's sorta like getting a restraining order and continuing to live with the person you had teh order againts.
Yep, not really news. Would "Woman with a Restraining Order Against Her Arrested for Calling and Hanging Up" make the front page? Even "Woman with a Restraining Order Against Her Arrested for Texting" wouldn't raise any eyebrows.
It's not newsworthy that a restraining order was violated. It's newsworthy that law enforcement are looking at the violation regardless of the communication channel. It's one more step towards realizing we don't need to create new laws with "e-this, or cyber-that" to have them apply to Internet traffic.
People just wake up in the morning and think about who they can get a restraining order against. In fact most people who are a general nuisance or annoyance we don't get one against either. It's only the people who have pushed us to the edge that we do. In my state (WA)
it is actually really hard to get a restraining order. You have to have proof of threats or actual violence. If someone just peed on your doorstep, keyed your car, etc you can't get one. So these things are quite a serious matter in some places. I once had a crazy ex-gf who did property damage to my vehicles. When the judge asked me if she ever had threatened to injure or kill me and when i said no he dismissed my petition against her! So this is no "Facebook poke". It's someone abusing a common medium of conversation to try to incite the other person into anger/frustration or a similar emotional state.
The topic really should be renamed to "Tennessee women arrested for breaking restraining order via Facebook". It would be accurate unlike the sensationalist journalism that occurred in this topic.
I agree completely. Forgery, blackmail, fraud, all have existed since time immemorial. It gets more sophisticated, but not fundamentally different.
evidence was a screen capture? you know how easy it is to create fake screens, most people with any photoshop like app and html can do one in an hour
It was just a mistake ... the "Report Abuse" functionality was incorrectly sending incidents to local Police offices. It's been fixed now.
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
Such restraining orders may or may not be justified or reasonable, but she clearly violated the order. I don't see that the fact that a "Facebook poke" was involved is relevant.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Where is Asterix when you need him?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
That Facebook allows you to poke minors? STATUTORY RAPE!
I'll say it again. They should change "Poke" to "Stalk" cuz that's what it's for.
...up to a year in prison...
More then 365 days = State Prison
Less then 365 days = County Jail
Jail is for pre-trial flight risks, and sentences which are less then one calander year. Less then 1 year, you stay in county lockup, more then that, and you're shipped off to the state pen. A weekend of incarceration is not prison, it's jail. It sucks, yes. But it's not prison. The bodily risk in my experience in county is very minimal, (don't start anything, and you'll be left alone). It's hours upon hours upon hours of sheer boredom, no tobacco, and no freedom, but your probably not going to end up somebody's bitch, or anything. You'll just be bored. Besides, if you behave, you can get work release, and be outside the walls for 10hrs a day. (or depending on the facility, be back before lockdown).
Jail sucks, but it's not prison.
Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There are way too many poker-faced people who should be in the pokey for poking someone.
That said, they should have forced her FB status update to read "In Prison For Breaking the Law" and changed her FB picture to be that of someone wearing an orange jumpsuit.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Where's the 'crazybitch' tag when you need it? I'd do it myself, but Slashdot doesn't let me do anything with the tags anymore.
a poke got you infinite lives, not arrested. /get off my 8-bit lawn
Funny I always thought it got you 18 years child support payments.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
brb, jail
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
...to poke fun at.
I seem to be the only person here who doesn't get this "poking" business. In more ways than one, it would seem.
There has to be knowledge of the identity of the other person, and an intentional attempt to directly contact that other person. A lack of knowledge will usually be an allowed defense in the court if the restrainee immediately ceases contact and leaves the area upon gaining that knowledge. Bidding to the same auction house would probably be allowed if the only communication actually was to the auction house, and the requisite distance is maintained, though if it's in the same building the courts may admonish the restrainee for remaining at risk of violating the proximity order.
In this particular case, the court is probably allowed to presume that the restrainee was actively using the Facebook account, though the defendant would be allowed to present affirmative evidence that she was not. Merely saying that it might not have been her isn't likely to work.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I poked someone on Facebook.
RTFA and see that her lawyer is hinting they are taking that path in her defense:
Well...I must say, I am a bit surprised. Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled to see so many responses along the lines of "no communication is no communication". It is just surprises me given so much of the entitlement mentality and anything on the internet is not wrong stuff. So...my hat is off to you slashdot.
Unless it was some automated nonsense or a fake, she gets what she deserves. If things went so far that the recipient went through the trouble of going to court to block communication then she should have known better than to initiate communication. I'm sorry, but a restraining order is pretty much the opposite of "please poke me" regardless of it was virtual or real. I am thrilled this is being handled this way, I am unbelievably happy that this is not turning into "let us make another 'on the internet' law!", I am devastated that my tax dollars are going to be spent dealing with this woman's stupidity.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Whatever be the case, this is terrific publicity for Facebook.
why wouldn't the pokee have just blocked the poker from even seeing their profile on Facebook before it reached this stage?
I had one asshole on facebook harassing me because I wouldn't let her in my dungeons and dragons group or some other role playing group. Because I thought she was an asshole. Yeah that's right, she. I would game with this asshole no matter what was between her legs. But because this asshole was female, she tried the old: "Its sexist guys like you that cause girls not to game". Sorry asshole, its assholes like you who cause rational people not to want to game. I work with a whole bunch of assholes. Sometimes I might even go out to drink with a few coworkers who aren't assholes and will even tolerated things when the asshole shows up. But I'm not going to spend my spare time hanging out with an asshole I don't want to drink with. In fact this asshole might actually be reading /.
And if you are Ms Asshole, that's why nobody wants to game with you. We don't don't care what your gender is, or how many book credits you claim to have. I have book credits too but I don't need to flaunt my gaming resume, so you're just another asshole and another reason not to game.
Most of the crimes have real world analogies. But I can't think of equivalent for "virtual thefts" in MMOGs , Griefings, "Anonymous" etc.
If person X had a restraining order against person Y, then Y would be barred from coming near person X. But I wonder what happens if person Y knows that person X plays online games and stalks the person there ? Nothing more needs to be done other than using full name and joining the same game server for X to know that Y was still keeping tabs on him/her.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
It's not a meaningful message in the sense of a letter or phone call, but it's still a form of communication, yes, especially when viewed in the context of something like a restraining order, which says, in essence, "leave this person the hell alone". So while your "poke" on Facebook might not be the same as showing up at their door, it is still a deliberate, concious attempt at reminding the target that you are still watching them. That violates not only the letter but the spirit of a restraining order.
Consider this. Let's say that instead of a "poke", the perp had instead placed a call to the victim's house and hung up after one ring. That kind of nonsense occurs all the time in these situations, and everyone pretty much agrees it is a form of harassment that violates the restraining order. The ring itself is exactly the same level of "communication" as the one-ring hang-up move -- it's a way of saying "I'm still here..."
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
I wonder if she held the cursor hovered over the poke link and said "I'm not touching youuuuuuu, I'm not touching youuuuuuuu!"
Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
Imagine the consequences had she given a Super Poke...
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Are they? Forget AC, lets say both people have accounts, but they don't know each other. Through random chance, the person with the restraining order against them happens upon the person they are to avoid contact with, and in various discussions they get into heated arguments. This goes on for a few weeks. Eventually, the second person realizes that the first person is someone that they got a restraining order against, while the first person remains oblivious who the second person is. So now what?
/..
I can certainly imagine what _should_ probably happen (second person informs the first person, _then_ if contact does not cease, the first person has violated the restraining order), but I'm finding it difficult to match that to a real life situation, so I can't imagine such a situation is already handled.
Though.. I guess a possible real life analogue may be something like the first person writing a letter that appears in the local newspaper, with the second person writing a letter to the newspaper in response to that, going back and forth using the newspaper as the medium instead of
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Most if not all restraining orders require a level of knowingly to be in violation. In other words, you need to prove your actions where completely innocent of being in violation of the order when happenstance places you in violation of the order. If you hang out somewhere where the protected person usually goes, then chances are, your not going to get away with it. However, if your shopping and happen to run into the person, then your obligated to correct anything that might be in violation. When the circumstances are outside of your control, like maybe you were in an auto accident and rushed to the same emergency room the other person might be at for different reasons, then it waits until you are able to control your own actions.
What this means is that if the contact is unknowingly, then as soon as it's reasonably known or suspected, you have to take corrective actions to be in compliance with the order. So if two AC accounts or pseudonyms turn out to be in violation of the order and there is nothing to suggest it was intentional, they aren't technically in violation until one or the other figures it out. If it's the protected person who does it first, then the cops will inform the restrained, if it's the restrained who figures it out first, they have to cease any actions that would violate the order as soon as they are aware of it.
This isn't really something new to E-law as it happens all the time in real life. Imagine how many times you randomly run into an ex somewhere when it isn't expected. Now imagine that Ex is the restrained person of a protective order who didn't do anything to cause the run in. It's actually that common outside some court order will list specific places where the person isn't allowed to go. I've seen them list places of employment, parks close to homes of protected people, schools, and so on when trolling court documents. Here is a site that explains a little more about them in my state. I have no reason to believe they word much differently in other states. That site deals mostly with domestic violence but it does have some input about when you find yourself in the same place as the restrained further down the page.
I think you can really say poke is a helpful form of communication!
pokepokepokepoke poke pokepoookepokepoke pokepoookepoookepoke pokepoookepokepoookepokepoooke pokepoke pokepoooke poookepoooke poooke pokepoookepoke pokepoooke pokepoookepoookepoke pokepoookepoookepoke poke poookepokepoke pokepoke poookepoke pokepokepoke pokepoke poookepokepoke poke pokepokepoookepoke pokepoooke poookepokepoookepoke poke poookepokepokepoke poookepoookepoooke poookepoookepoooke poookepokepoooke poookepokepoke pokepoooke poooke pokepoooke poookepokepoookepoke poke poookepoke poooke poke pokepoookepoke pokepoookepokepoookepokepoooke
But... the future refused to change.
If the protective order stated no contact, then person Y would be in violation of it under your scenario. The thing with restraining orders is that any violation of the order is considered a violation until it is shown to not be intentional or knowingly. The only out they would have is if person Y signed up for the game with no knowledge of person X being a player or member until later. At the point person Y has knowledge of person X's involvement, person Y would have to take any steps reasonable to be in compliance with the order.
Here is the unobvious thing about protective orders. People have been attempting to work around them for ages and most judges will see right through attempts to ignore them. A very real fact is intimidation with the protected in which they can be influenced by simply seeing that a person is willing to violate a protective order. Judges take this very seriously and it's why most states have adopted the rules that allow prosecutors to continue prosecution of crimes even if the offended/victims ask to have the charges dropped. Attempting to sneak into a game or site in order to harass someone who has a protective order against you is only going to anger the courts and they plenty of experience of this happening outside of being online.
Even if it was mere happenstance, as soon as the person wihth the restraining order on them realized this was the holder of the order they'd be obliged to leave or be in violation of the order. They'd probably be obliged to explain themselves to the court if anyone else noticed they were in contact with the complainant as well. If a person got on the bus and the other person was there, they'd have to leave, just the same.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
It's no different from someone calling using the restrainee's phone... or spoofing that phone. That's even easier than forging packets. Again, no special "internet law" is needed
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
We are talking about putting a person in jail, depriving them of their liberty, because of the click of a button. I do not feel that this in the spirit of the law. While it is true, that "poking" someone requires an active decision to electronically reach out and touch the other person I do not feel that this "crime" is worth of putting someone in jail.
Now, my postulate assumes that the "victim" could have just un-friended the person to prevent being poked by that person.
The perpetrator logs onto facebook, see's her adversary, and clicks a button. This is similar to the perpetrator seeing her adversary at the grocery store and looking at them, or even winking or waving at them. A "poke" is not a well formed sentence. It is different than what I think the law suggests as a form of communication. What did she communicate exactly?
Restraining orders happen all the time. They do not necessarily imply any actual crime has been committed, and do not require trial by jury. People can also be harassed by having unjust restraining orders applied against them.
You can't really stop someone from looking at you, or waving, or raising their eyebrows, etc... in public. You can look away. Just like the victim could un-friend them.
I do not agree with depriving someone of their liberty because of one "poke".
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
That's not communication among the two persons. I am not writing this to you. I'm writing this about your points, to the public.
How can they be 100% sure it was the restrainee that did the poking?
(Yes, I'm serious.)
If restraining orders include Internet contact, then it means you can send someone to jail if you can forge a packet from their machine. That's really scary. Sure the restrainee shouldn't have done whatever they did to get the restraining order in the first place, but making it so anyone in the world can send them to jail seems excessive.
Also, what if they're both bidding on the same online auction? What if they're both Anonymous Cowards on /. ? What if they meet by accident on an online game? Does teabagging in Halo violate the restraining order?
And while you are muddling through that horribly complex, never seen before set of issues.... I'm writing your name and address on a post card with some death threats and mailing it to your ex-wife who has a restraining order against you.
What if they're both submitting write-in bids to a well-established auction house? What if they're both writing commentary to their local newspaper? What if they're both competitive Scrabble players climbing through the ranks of the local Scrabble circuit?
By the wording of your post, I assume you meant to say that being 'over the internet' or not is irrelevant, and that the same thing will happen regardless. So as a regular, law-ignorant Slashdotter I must ask: what *does* happen in those cases? inquiring minds want to know.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
is...why are you facebook friends with someone whom you have a restraining order on?
First in order for the woman to get arrested the the plaintiff had to notify the authorities that the defendant made contact with them regardless of form. In this case it was a poke on Facebook. More than likely the plaintiff purposely left the defendant as a friend on Facebook hoping that they would initiate some form of contact that could be used as proof. Now here's the "genuine" scary part a plaintiff does not have to have proof that the defendant made contact. All the defendant has to do is call the authorities and say the defendant made contact regardless if they really did or not. The authorities are obligated to find and arrest the defendant and hold them pending an investigation. If after the investigation no proof could be conjured up the defendant would be set free. Never the less it's a real mess for the defendant they should plan on having an extended stay at the ole' CJ. Now because the plaintiff has proof of contact it will be at a judges discretion as to whether or not they want to enforce the penalties for breaking a an NCO (no contact order)
BTW NCO's are different beasts altogether than a restraining order. No Contact Orders are only imposed by the courts and restraining orders are brought about by the plaintiff making a complaint. In this case as one can determine from the wording of the article
"Jackson had been banned by courts from 'telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating' with the apparent poke recipient"
Keywords: banned by courts from 'telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating
This indicates that it was an NCO imposed by the court to protect the plaintiff regardless of whether the plaintiff wanted it imposed or not. It was issued the same day the defendant was arraigned in court and would stay in effect all the way to the trial if there was to be one. My guess is that the defendant pleaded not guilty and a hearing date was set hence the reason for the NCO. The kicker is that if a defendant violates an NCO it is a separate offense altogether from the original complaint and it's treated as a felony with up to a $1,000 dollar fine and/or up to one year in jail.
Nine times out of ten NCO's imposed by the courts are overkill and unnecessary. However the reasons for an NCO being placed at all stem from incidents where a tragedy took place. For instance two years ago in the state of Idaho they had a beheading where a young woman's boyfriend was released from jail stalked her, kidnapped her, and cut her head off.
So the next time you feel like having a fight with your girlfriend, boyfriend, wife, husband or significant other, even a just a friend and someone decides to involve the authorities better make sure it's being done for the right reason and not because you just want the other party to spend a night in jail. Depending on what jurisdiction one is in at the time rest assured that whomever is carted off to jail wins all kinds of neat prizes. An orange jumsuit, a blanket, a pillow, tooth brush, shampoo kit and a brand new NCO smile your the next contestant on you have no more life.
If all of that is not enough to scare you "and this could happen to anyone and I mean anyone" think about how it would feel to have a document hanging over your head where at any given moment the plaintiff could drop a dime on you all because they are having a bad day. Oh yes "the plaintiff" for better or for worse now owns your behind and depending on what kind of person they are is going to determine how the rest of your life is going to turn out. Prosecuting attorneys LOVE NCO's love, love, love them because all they care about is the "win" and having an NCO in place means they have total control over the outcome. If you find yourself ever in a situation like this batten down the hatches and find yourself a reputable attorney preferably one that is a former district attorney turned defense attorney that is going to be your ONLY course for salvation. And for all purposes rendered make no contact what so ever with the plaintiff not even so much as a poke on Facebook otherwise consider your goose cooked.
Judges aren't (universally) idiots.
The standards of proof aren't different for violations of restraining orders, i.e. the accused needs to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And accidentally breaking a restraining-order is acceptable. Even if you're not allowed to go near someone, you won't get punished for -accidentally- running into them, nor if you couldn't reasonably know it was them.
Arresting someone for voyeurism for a peek? Those crazy kids.
Does teabagging in Halo violate the restraining order?
Or what about teabagging in City of Heroes?
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/Scarletdown/COH/COH-Teabag.jpg
This space unintentionally left blank.
Shouldn't all pokers be arrested?
Why are you only scared now? Is it because "new technology" is involved?
What about old technology that everyone seems to take for granted?
What if someone used her mobile to make a call without her knowing? What if someone sneaks into her house while she is sleeping and makes a call? What if someone writes a fake letter from her? What if ... you get the point ;)
Why do people always want to witch hunter against the new-kid-on-the-block (seriously, the band wasn't that bad ;)).
Seriously, WTF did they publish the victims' name for?
So we could all poke them, and try for our own restraining order?
I'm going to hang my shiny, new restraining order on the wall next to my Kindergarten Diploma!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
> Sure the restrainee shouldn't have done whatever they did to get the
> restraining order in the first place
AFAIK/IANAL you can get a restraining order against anyone for anything and
nothing. It's often used by soon-to-be-ex spouses as part of the war. You can
go to a court room near you and see STACKS of them.
The accused 'restrainee', as you call it, will agree to stay away from the
other person and avoid any and all contact for a certain amount of time. Yes,
that would include a 'poke'. Repercussions will ensue otherwise. However, he
(and most of the time it will be a HE) does not admit any guilt to anything
when agreeing to the restraining order, PFA and whatever other names it goes
by. It does have negative consequences though for the accused, such as loss of
weapons/permits for that time, restrictions/modifications to visitation rights
if kids are involved, possible problems at work etc.. You can see why it's a
very popular thing to make somebody's life hard(er). Not to say, that there
aren't cases where it is very necessary and legitimate!
Does teabagging in Halo violate the restraining order?
Either I missed a lot in that game or there is some cultural dissonance going on. I'm at work now so I'm sure as hell not going to give you the UK definition of "teabagging".... google it yourself.
Only in the USA would a person be arrested for clicking on the webpage of another person too many times.... freakin idiotic legal system
Not an issue unless the defendant actually denied doing the poking.
judges of today are yet unaware of what batch communication is. someone sends a mail to 150 people by ccing them. if you reply to the mail, your reply goes to 150 other people. if you have a restraining order concerning one of the 150 on that list, you are violating court order.
that's the incompetence of the courts and failure of the law to account for this. these laws were made centuries ago. no such communication existed.
you can NOT bar people from using the technical amenities of modern information technology ( reply all feature, social networking sites' various features, etc). its against human rights.
i dont give a FLYING fuck about the person who was 'disturbed' by the poke - what s/he did is basically violating someone's rights. its as if having courts ban someone from using long distance calls, because if someone does a long distance call, the call will pass through a node that the person with the restraining order is also connected to.
Read radical news here
my facebook friend's status message said he was feeling suicidal and was standing on the edge of a cliff......so I poked him. erm. I'll get my coat
exact same thing happened to one of my friends who was fighting a corrupt foundation who uses a lot of dirty tricks, in the courts. one of those is a similar trick ; first the foundation's lawyer acquired a restraining order from court. then, one of the foundation members has sent an extremely inflammatory email cced to hundreds of people working in the relevant area, including my friend, AND the lawyer. naturally, my friend responded to inflammatory and defamating remarks by using 'reply all' feature, so that everyone in the mailing list would see the other side of the story. then the smartypants lawyer went to the court, showing the email he received through 'reply all'. and the court, being ignorant in that regard took up the case and now prosecuting my friend.
it is quite possible that this woman/man (whatever it was) purposefully arranged such a setup to get back at the defendant, just like what this smartypants fucktard did here.
Read radical news here
Would pinging the person's IP number constitute "communication"?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
c64 rules!
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
Just because something happens over a new medium, but with clear equivalents in current understanding, doesn't make this news.
OMG how complicated is this internet thing?!?!
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=halo+teabagging
Cherish your innocence.
IANAL
* poke *
So if someonme gets a restraining order against me, they can prevent me from working by positioning themself between me and my workplace?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
> > IANAL
> * poke *
I am so getting a restraining order against you! :-)
While we're at it:
What if they're both professional heavyweight boxers, set to face off for the heavyweight title?
What if they run into each other at a public masquerade ball, one seduces the other, and they don't figure it out until they wake up the next morning?
What if there are three people, person A with a restraining order against B, B against C, and C against A, and they all simultaneously stalk each other?
The mysteries of restraining orders are seemingly endless!
I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
How is it that the person was a friend that had the ability to poke this person, if this person had a restraining order,
she could have just eliminated her from her friends list, I would have ruled a little lighter on this one, I know she was told no contact...
but technically she did not directly contact the person, she merely placed a post on a forum which the other person views regularly, there was no real direct communication....I can post on someone's wall, does not mean that person will read it.
...that they had to have been Facebook friends to poke one another in the first place? Seems odd to me that you'd have a restraining order against someone and yet keep them as your friend on Facebook.
Are they? Forget AC, lets say both people have accounts, but they don't know each other. ..
You don't get a restraining order to not contact someone you don't know. Second, I thought that Facebook had a Terms of Service policy that required you to use your real name (I know that not everyone does, but I am pretty sure that such a TOS would make it impossible to violate the restraining order if the other person was using a pseudonym). If the person who had the restraining order issued was using their real name the violator has no case.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Does teabagging in Halo violate the restraining order?
Ah, the great questions of the universe...
And the answer is... 42!
WTF is a poke? I've seen it, I've clicked on it, I even sent one, but I still don't know wtf a poke is or what it is for.
This illustrates why the creators of the Emerald viewer for Second Life need to make some changes regarding their included radar feature. Specifically with the teleport to..... feature. This thing has a scanner range of 4096 meters. Since a sim is 256x256 meters, you can scan for anybody many sims away. 16 sims away in fact. 16 squared, is 256. You can scan for all avatars in a grid of 256 sims. What's more, any avatar the radar actually finds, can show up in a window with an option to teleport to their location. You don't have to get their permission to do so. You don't even have to know who they are. Just ask to go there and poof, you are there. Even if somebody has a property protected by a security orb with an immediate eject or kill function, the person still arrives there. Fabulous tool for harassment and griefing. And people posting in the Second Life forums think preemptively banning "all" avatars is a bad thing.
By the wording of your post, I assume you meant to say that being 'over the internet' or not is irrelevant, and that the same thing will happen regardless. So as a regular, law-ignorant Slashdotter I must ask: what *does* happen in those cases? inquiring minds want to know.
That's what judges are for. They "judge" whether or not the defendant's actions were in violation of the intent of the restraining order.
If the defendant goes to the same grocery store he goes to every week, and his ex-wife who has a restraining order against him happens to be there, and he immediately leaves as soon as he sees her so as not to be in violation, but she calls the police — the judge will likely decide that he was not actually in violation of the restraining order. On the other hand, if he shows up at a grocery store he's never been to before which he knows is the store she regularly shops at, sees her, and proceeds to follow her around the store — welll, that won't be looked at too fondly by any judge.
Those are easy examples, but the point is that it is up to the judge to decide, with help from attorneys on both sides arguing their cases.
It's kind of hard to google something like that, but I'm guessing it isn't somehow more lewd than the US/Halo equivalent.
This doesn't mean they need to create new laws for "e-this, or cyber-that" ...
Ah, but they do. The past several decades have shown that one of the most amazing powers of a computer is to erase history. As soon as a computer is introduced to any human activity, all historic precedent is instantly discarded, and we have to relearn everything that we used to know. This especially applies to laws and legal precedent. The mere presence of a computer leads to cries of "But this is different!" from all involved parties, followed by interminable discussion of who should be allowed to do what to whom, with absolutely no reference to precedent.
Examples of this abound in nearly every area of law. Thus, in the US we used to have a Constitutional rule forbidding "unwarranted search and seizure". But if there's a computer involved, it is completely legal to collect data on anyone for any reason, and to let anyone else search through that data at any time (if they pay the price you're asking for access). It's also legal for any authorities to seize and carry off anyone's computer without any legal warrant, just because you think there might be incriminating evidence on it (or you'd like to play with that model of computer for a while). The new GPS gadgets that are in most cars contain small computers, so they are the perfect excuse for police to stop anyone at any time, search the car and/or the persons in it, and carry off any electronics they may find. And so on.
So it should be no surprise that we have to reestablish legal rules involving restraining orders when a computer is involved. Of course we do; there's a computer involved. So the fact that, as others have pointed out, there is abundant legal precedent for handling accidental or fraudulent "violations" of restraining orders, this means nothing when computers are involved. We must laboriously repeat all the past discussions, and figure out all over again what the rules should be, without paying any attention to any of the precedent.
Of course, I could be violating the whole principle here, by pointing out in a computer-related forum that we're ignoring precedent. Of course we are; there are computers involved in making this forum work. So maybe I should just shut up and enjoy the discussion ...
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I guess that means no podkilling my ex and staying the hell out of Amarr space.
Not easy enough. The Amarr are all scum anyway for what they did to my people, and they all deserve to be podkilled. orz
That, or I can move to China, where they have EVE, but don't connect to Tranquility.
You just had to bring facts into a perfectly good 'what-if, just to be a jerk' hypothetical didn't you. How DARE you be sensible, reasonable, and actually have half a clue what you're talking about!! ;-)
is that covered by the restraining order?
> If restraining orders include Internet contact, then it means you
> can send someone to jail if you can forge a packet from their machine
Umm, we're not talking about unauthenticated UDP traffic here. Even if facebook uses plain old http (no encryption; that seems unlikely but I don't happen to know), you'd still, in order to impersonate a user by forging packets, also have to be directly upstream from them and thus able to intercept traffic that was supposed to go to their computer; otherwise you'd never get past the TCP handshake. It's not impossible, but it's a good deal less likely than you make out. Basically, your ISP would have to be out to get you.
Aside from that, I imagine the court presumably made some effort to verify that the perpetrator actually did violate the restraining order. One would hope so, at any rate.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
How can they be 100% sure it was the restrainee that did the poking?
(Yes, I'm serious.)
Uhh, and if it was a call, how can they be sure it was the restrainee that did the calling?
And if it was a letter, how can they be sure it was the restrainee that did the mailing?
And if it was a smoke signal, how can they be sure it was the restrainee that made it?
Seriously, your objection applies to virtually *any* mode of communication. This situation isn't even remotely unique, and just like these other examples, law enforcement has to figure out what actually happened.
for fingering someone. Well, for emailing the results to them and thanking them for letting me finger them, but whatever.
Are they?
Believe it or not, yeah. Pretty much.
Forget AC, lets say both people have accounts,
Facebook accounts have names. No excuses there, you know who it is.
Though.. I guess a possible real life analogue may be something like the first person writing a letter that appears in the local newspaper, with the second person writing a letter to the newspaper in response to that, going back and forth using the newspaper as the medium instead of /..
In that case, as the other person said, you're only in violation if you're knowingly doing it. If/when you realized the other person was the person who had the restraining order against you, you are in violation if you continue communicating with them. If you're unaware of it, you're not guilty of anything, and if the other person realizes it before you do, you can use the fact that you were unaware to defend yourself – as long as you stop corresponding as soon as you realize it.
Of course, this gives someone a lot of power when using such orders "offensively." By this, I mean a protective order obtained where the need does not really exist, but which is used to harrass and restrict the actions of the person against whom the order is taken out. Due to the practice of being overly cautious when granting protective orders, and the practice of considering any violation a violation whether intentional or not, a manipulative person can have a field day with protective orders. Get an order, then trick the other person into being in the same place as you... What the heck, just show up at their place of business. Add in secondary effects, such as a loss of firearms rights, and the malicious use of protective orders gives the user quite a bit of power.
You will spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees defending yourself against accidentally breaking a restraining order. Its not a simple thing.
U can't touch this.
Epic. Just epic.
Oh I agree. There are some safe guards in place to stop unnecessary protective orders from being issued though. In most situations outside of obvious emergencies, the restrained person and their lawyer gets to answer the complaint requesting the protective order so fraudulent claims could surface at that stage. It doesn't always happen and orders are issued when they probably didn't need to be and there probably is something like what you mentioned going on.
But there are added benefits to people manipulating others that could expose that potential problem. Suppose an angry spouse is attempting to set someone up. Well, it would be a public place and there would be witnesses that could describe what went down and so on. Perhaps it would be enough to put the shoe on the other foot, or perhaps they are in on the trap too and burn you. If people are willing to lie to the cops and the court, then protective order or not, your getting screwed anyways.
Protective orders do not on their own keep people safe. It just adds a tool so the police can do something that wouldn't be available to them under normal circumstances. I would imagine that a lot of people who get killed or harmed after a protective order has been issued are people attempting to flaunt it in much the way you described. I would suggest that could be a form of candidate for the Darwin Awards where people find out the hard way that you do not poke an angry bear that just attacked you, in the eye with a stick.
Yes, actually they can. Then you can go to the court and state that they are purposefully placing themself to harass you, and the restraining order will be rescinded or amended to allow you to work. Restraining orders are there to protect the individual who files for them, not to harass the target. If you work with someone and have to get a restraining order against them, they can't come to work when you're there.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
So, on facebook, to be able to poke someone you have to be in their friends list. If the other party had a restraining order out against them, why had they accepted them into their friends to enable them to send a poke in the first place? Er, duh?
This same situation could exist 30 years ago with POTS. If you call someone and just breathe into the phone, you are violating a restraining order. Say, for example, that such a call originates at your house, and it's to a person who has a restraining order against you. How do we know who made the call? Did you make it? Did a guest of yours make it? Did someone break in and make the call? Or, if we're going to start talking about conspiracies like packet-forging, did someone beige-box you?
I agree with the parent's point, that we often don't need new laws to handle the internet.
AFAIK/IANAL you can get a restraining order against anyone for anything and nothing.
AFAIK/IANAL you cannot.
Someone tried to have a restraining order issued against me, however, to the extent of my knowledge, none was actually issued. I was told that, if one was issued, I would be served with the papers. I never saw anything, so assumed no restraining order had been issued.
Again, IANAL, but I don't think you can get a restraining order on the basis of something the other person said (as it was in my case) – although if you have proof (taped conversation) you might be more likely to get the restraining order.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the situation isn't scary. But I think that certain laws and procedures have been scary since well before the internet showed up.
That looks like 0.75 of a screen shot. What happened to the rest?
Facebook User Arrested for Violating Court Order Using a “Poke”
Fixed.
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
.. was put in the pokey for poking the pokee?
If the UK definition is placing the external male genitals on the face of another person, then that is the definition being used here.
If it's the protected person who does it first, then the cops will inform the restrained, if it's the restrained who figures it out first, they have to cease any actions that would violate the order as soon as they are aware of it.
Like I said, I could certainly imagine how it should happen. But all of your examples were either 0-way or 1-way anonymous encounters (person A sees person B, but person B doesn't notice person A). I'm just having difficulty coming up with 2-way anonymous encounters IRL. And without a 2-way anonymous encounter IRL, why would there be precedent about how to handle a 2-way anonymous encounter on the internet?
Now I'm not saying a special e-law is required (after all, 0-way and 1-way anonymous encounters are accounted for), just that a 2-way anonymous encounter might need it's own special handling, which would apply equally to the internet as well as IRL (if anyone can come up with a better IRL example than I did).
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
You forgot to include one example. What if her poke implied violence on the part of the poker against the pokee, along with a text note included saying "DIE BITCH! Soon enough!"
You're other argument is valid but empty. What if someone stole/borrowed her phone or tapped into her phone line or mailed a death threat with her return address on it? Borrowed her car? There are plenty of ways she could have been framed outside of th "'net". Why should the internet be offered any more protection simply because it's possible it's the internet? Sure some framing techniques are harder off the web than on it. But she's obviosly done something bad enough that a judge issued a restraining order against her. She got herself into this.
The real moral to take away here is if you don't want to get framed for something, don't be a stalker or have a history of violent and/or overly obnoxious behavior.
You can spend a fortune defending yourself against any number of accusations, despite being completely innocent.
That sucks, but isn't spesific to this or similar cases.
I think you are focusing too much on anonymous encounters. In order for someone to be in a violation of a court order, they have to have knowledge that they are in violation. A simple anonymous encounter that neither party knew of couldn't be in violation until at least one party was aware of the identity of the other party. This is because you have to knowingly violate the order and someone has to complain the order was violated. This is not unlike two people going to the same event and not knowing the other person was there. It's very much like an existing real world scenario.
This is not unlike two people going to the same event and not knowing the other person was there.
You're misunderstanding. It is very much not like that at all. Here we are right now, having a conversation. You don't know who I am, and I don't know who you are. That is a 2-way anonymous encounter. Two people going to the same event, but neither coming into contact with the other is not an encounter.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Actually, it's the same thing because neither one of us know who the other really is. Suppose the event is a costume party, we could still interact without knowing who each other are.
There are two goals of protective orders. It's to attempt to stop someone from threatening or harassing or dangerous behavior and to attempt to stop someone from from receiving that behavior. Those behaviors are unique in that people have to be aware of it happening. If I do not know who you are, I can't be doing something to you in violation of a court order. Once I find out who you are, then I have to make corrections in my behavior to be in compliance with the order.
Suppose we do go to a costume party. Suppose we meet each other and talk briefly by the punch bowl. Neither of us is in violation until one of us recognize the other person. If you have an order against me, you walk away, inform someone to explain you are there, and I must adjust my behavior. If I recognize you, I have to adjust my behavior. Online is the same way, if your concealing your identity, I do not know I'm in violation until I learn that you are who you are. At that point in time, I have to adjust my behavior or be in violation.
Most of this is uncommon in the real world because the order usually state places where you cannot go. These places are schools, homes, places of employment and so on. But the chances of running into someone isn't rare or unheard of, even if that encounter is just as anonymous as our identities are to each other right now. Suppose I change jobs and the different phones make my voice sound different. You call me for whatever I'm selling, I answer and sell you whatever, then realize who you are when payment or delivery information gets exchanged. If you have an order against me, we aren't in violation until I know who you are. At that point in time, I have to correct the situation. There are lots of real world scenarios that coexist with the anonymous online scenario you set out.
Yes, you can bar someone from using the "reply all" feature. There are people who would use something like that to set up a way to intimidate someone.
no you cannot. the fact that some courts have banned people from 'using computers' is just another example of centuries old, derelict legalese being incapable of coping up with 21st century.
this is 21st century. phones, computers, internet, communication devices are not only means to communicate with random people anymore. they are actually mandated in a lot of fields of life to conduct the daily routines or government services. some countries even mandate some government services to be conducted over the internet in europe, in terms of efficiency. in united states it is just up to informational level now, but soon it will aim for the level it is in eu, because the efficiency boost and convenience for everyone involved is incomparable with old travel & paper & pen ways.
therefore, in many countries around the world, banning people from communication devices already means stripping them of services they pay with their taxes for, or some of their basic human rights (access to information).
there is nothing justifiable in it. you could as well ban people from life or 'shelter'.
Read radical news here
What innocence? Miss de Meowner there is a powerful Mastermind. She and her minions know good and well what they are implying by standing in front of the hospital elevators and "offering a hot cup of tea" to any villains who nd up having to make the trip to the hospital. :). (Double Entendre for the win).
(And it did elicit a proper response once at least, when some guy came out of the elevator, came up to her, and did a nice smarmy golf clap for her.)
This space unintentionally left blank.
I cropped out the rest. It was not needed for whatever post on the CoH forums I had originally made this for.
This space unintentionally left blank.
"it is god given right of aristocracy to govern and be above others". french law excerpt, circa 1770.
something being written as 'law' does not mean that it is either true, or justified, or even valid. get this in your head.
being unable to cope with technical advances of 2000s is the shortcoming of law. not anyone else's.
Read radical news here
You don't get a restraining order to not contact someone you don't know.
According to this post, a company can get a restraining order against an individual, which would mean that the individual could not have contact with any representative of the company. Thus it would be possible to have contact with someone without realizing that they were one of the people with whom you were restrained from contacting, until you realized that they worked for the company and at this point you would be legally required to break off all communications with them.
However, in this case I agree with you. There is little to no chance that the poker was anything less than fully aware of the restraining order held by their pokee. If someone has a restraining order against you and you poke them on facebook, you're asking for whatever trouble you get.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.