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."
The system works!
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.
I hope she enjoys getting poked in the pokey.
I don't think you understand the mechanics of lesbian sex...
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Interviewer: Ms. Jackson, how have been your life since you was prohibited from comunicating?
Sharon Jackson: ...
The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
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.
I don't think you understand the mechanics of prison sex.
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.
I would say it's closer to leaving them a voicemail. That's not really the issue though. Would you or I wave to someone in a public place after a court issues a no contact order? I sure as hell wouldn't. There's something wrong with that woman.
http://www.revmediaphotography.com
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."
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...
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.
Heavy-handed? No. If you've got a restraining order against you, you shouldn't be trying to push boundaries like that.
I wouldn't say it's equivalent to a wave in a public place. A wave is directional. You could always claim you were waving to someone else. A Facebook poke is far more directed and specific. It's more like walking up to someone in a crowd and saying "I see you." There's the issue of this being far more direct and obvious a form of communication. If this can be substantiated by facebook, I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to say she violated a protective order.
You have to confirm pokes. TWO random accidental mouse clicks is highly improbable.
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.
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.
I don't think you understand how many here understand mechanics way more than they understand sex.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I agree completely. Forgery, blackmail, fraud, all have existed since time immemorial. It gets more sophisticated, but not fundamentally different.
I don't think it's heavy-handed. You generally have to do some persistent and crazy stuff to get a restraining order, so nerves are already pretty raw. Think of it like walking up to somebody and giving them the finger right in their face. It's stupid and obnoxious in any case (and yes, I think the Facebook "Poke" feature is always stupid and obnoxious), but what might be a mildly annoying jab when directed at a good friend could be a much bigger deal when done by a crazy stalker, crazy ex-, or whatever. In other words, you made yourself a persistent nuisance. A judge ordered you to stop on threat of fine or imprisonment. Flouting that court order, you got on Facebook and "poke" your victim, essentially saying, "You're still on my radar." I don't think it's terribly heavy-handed to punish the offender according to the terms of the restraining order.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
I understand quantum sex.
No wait...
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.
Shut up. You are annoying as hell.
...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! --
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").
Quantum sex you say? There's a app^Wcomic for that! http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1666
(I'm not affiliated with them in any way--I just think the comics are funny, and that you might too)
A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
I seem to be the only person here who doesn't get this "poking" business. In more ways than one, it would seem.
I don't think you understand how many here understand mechanics way more than they understand sex.
Great, more car metaphors.
Well Timmy, when a daddy car and a mommy car love each other very much...
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
why wouldn't the pokee have just blocked the poker from even seeing their profile on Facebook before it reached this stage?
Really, I don't even understand how two women can make love, unless they kind of scissor or something.
This is slashdot, I bet more people thought "physics" than "cars"...
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.
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.
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.
> I understand quantum sex.
Me too! With my eyes closed I have the most awesome sex ever with gorgeous women but the moment I look I'm all alone :-/
The most common reason for restraining orders is harassment and/or abuse. It's a judge saying: You leave that person the hell alone, or face the consequences.
And a wink, a smile, or a wave sure as hell counts as communication in this context, as do calling the victim and hanging up after one ring and a million other ways of harassing someone.
The part which you're missing is that though a wink, or a poke, or a wave, doesn't by itself contain a lot of communication, if someone who has a history of harassing or abusing you, persist in showing up in your life, despite being ORDERED by a judge to stop doing that, it sure as hell is harassment. And the judge sure as hell is correct in slapping that kind of behaviour down with whatever punishment seems appropriate.
c64 rules!
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
Really, I don't even understand how two women can make love, unless they kind of scissor or something.
Exactly. There's other options too.