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!
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.
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.
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 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 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.
You can poke strangers as long as their profile is public, I just checked.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
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.
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.
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 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 :-/
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.