Slashdot Mirror
Man Served Restraining Order Via Facebook
schliz writes "An Australian man has been served a restraining order via Facebook, after unsuccessful attempts by police to reach him by phone and in person. The man was a 'prolific Facebook user' who had allegedly threatened, bullied and harassed a former partner online. He was served both interim and final intervention orders by Facebook, after a local magistrate upheld the interim order indefinitely."
Now, I know what a restraining order looks like!
there, much more satisfying subject matter
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I would like to reject all messages from this application.
Give them SOME credit. I'm sure they didn't just search for the guys' name and send a message to the first result.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Usually the person that serves the subpoena doesn't know the person being served. The profile picture and semi-private info on someone's profile shouldn't be enough to hold up in court.
I Must Be New Here, but if you Read The Fine Summary you will see that the man was being served a restraining order for his activities on facebook. It hardly matters what his real name is, since clearly you can serve the restraining order to the individual in question. If the name on the order doesn't match the person's real name, but does match their facebook account, then it's sufficient to drag them into court if they violate it, and then issue a new one (and perhaps some new charges, not least violation of the order) with the subject's real name attached.
See, laws are enforced in the real world, where we have ways around this sort of thing, not in an imaginary castle of perfect logic...
Try reading the summary in the future. It might help you. Then again, it might not. I could bet either way.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Idle, the equivalent of the Celebrity Gossip Section for geeks. You know you shouldn't click on the links but do anyway.
Yeah I'm sure most judges won't be very impressed or convinced with the typical Slashdot Pedant's attempts of weaseling out via "perfect logic".
Those pedants are like those nerdy kids who have "figured out game rules" but haven't figured out why nobody wants to play with them.
Yeah I'm sure most judges won't be very impressed or convinced with the typical Slashdot Pedant's attempts of weaseling out via "perfect logic". Those pedants are like those nerdy kids who have "figured out game rules" but haven't figured out why nobody wants to play with them.
I still like to play AD&D 2nd edition because fighters who specialize in throwing darts can do incredible damage at first level (4x(1d3+[str bonus]) per round)
Exactly.
Here in the real world the Judges and Police happily trample a persons right and due process to do whatever the hell they want.
In Auzzie land it must be very lax for legal documents. Here in the USA you must be served the real paperwork. Although some scumbag judges and dirty cops like to skirt the law and do whatever it takes.
For Example: Emanuel Goldstein was served papers while he was out of the state. they knocked on his door, someone else answered and they literally THREW the papers through the open doorway.
This is technically not a legal serving of papers, but judges allow and encourage such bending of the law all the time.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
We’re talking about Australia, where back in 2008 a couple was served with a lawsuit via facebook under similar circumstances.
Really, though, serving a restraining order via facebook actually makes a bit more sense than the lawsuit even did... if the bullying is occurring via facebook, the person being harassed might not even know who the bully is, but if the court is able to legally order the bully to quit, it makes sense to do so via facebook.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Ahahaha. Aha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You were so on topic, the moderator who modded you has been sent to the fifth material plane of fail.
Fuck moderation: you're cool.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If I read this correctly, the reason for serving the restraining order via Facebook was due to the fact that the police had been unable to contact the individual by phone or in person. And yet, the message stated that attempts to violate this order would result in the perp being arrested. How does that work? "Ok. He's violated the Facebook Restraining Order. Go arrest him." "How? We couldn't find him. That's why we had to serve him on Facebook." "Uhh. We could put out a hit on him in MafiaWars." "Right!"
After exhaustive research and excrutiating analysis, I've determined that Bubba is, in fact, everywhere.
Your Ex Girlfriend likes this.
How is this nothing more than "service by publication", common when an individual can't be served the usual way?
Oh! I see. It is because it uses the shiny new interweb.
In Liberty, Rene
I was arrested 3 years ago because my roommate had drugs in the dorm room. Three years after being found not guilty, the police contacted me via Facebook to inform me that they wanted to return the evidence they seized from me, including nearly $500 in cash. After calling the officer who contacted me, I was mailed a check for the amount. Pretty interesting stuff, although if someone had made a fake Facebook profile under my name, they might be the one with the money...
If they can't find the guy to serve the restraining order how are they going to arrest him after subsequent breaches of the order?
In Google we trust.