Slashdot Mirror
Can a Court Order You To Delete a Facebook Account?
First time accepted submitter jaymz666 writes "Can a court really order you to delete a Facebook account? When Asher initially appeared in court after the July 20 accident, the judge told her to delete her Facebook account, Kittinger said. Asher did not take it seriously, and was charged with contempt of court when the judge learned her Facebook page was still active. Seems like a big overreach."
It was a condition of her release. If she did not wish to comply with the conditions, her jail time would have been higher and/or she would have had greater fines.
If the judge offers something like this up, you take it. It beats spending more time in jail. But you had better follow through. At this level of the court system, the judges are your neighbors. They want the same things you do, a safe community. They are not ivory tower federal judges.
Sounds like she agreed to get off facebook as part of deal for less jail time. Other deals you might make with the judge. "Less time in exchange for serving in the military", "Less time in exchange for community service", "Less time in exchange for entering into rehab", "Less time with an agreement to avoid certain people"
It is still kinda of awful. Judges should avoid restricting peoples first amendment rights.
Of course you can.
http://www.wikihow.com/Permanently-Delete-a-Facebook-Account
I did it a year ago and have never looked back
Of course, whether or not FB actually deletes your data is another matter.
You do realize that for most of the US, the nearest public transportation is several days walk?
That's not actually true, although the legal system treats it as such. Constitutional means compatible with the US Constitution. Some things flatly aren't, even if the court says otherwise.
You don't decide that, the Supreme Court does. Who says the Supreme Court decides that? The Constitution.
Well... not exactly. The Supreme Court says the Supreme Court decides that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
In Wisconsin, also for unknown reasons, when they abolished capital punishment they had murder rates quadrupal in 2 years, and re-instated it to get the murder rates back down.
Wisconsin abolished the death penalty in 1853, never reinstated it, has only executed a single person in it's history, and has one of the lowest per capita homicide rates in America. So whatever your source is, it's crap.
In places like Detroit or Washington DC or Baltimore City where legal gun ownership is basically non-existent, the huge amount of gun proliferation results in an armed criminal element and a disarmed citizenry.
I can't speak for the other cities, but there is nothing overly restrictive about the gun owenerships laws in Detroit or the state of Michigan. Open carry is allowed assuming the gun is registered and CCW is legal after taking the course and the background check. The people of Detroit do often keep guns in their house because they know the police are not going to show up in any reasonable amount of time, if at all.
Just because the city is a shit hole, don't assume the reason for that is one that fits your ideological bias.
According to this [gunpolicy.org], for every 100 people in the states there are 90 guns
This is not a particularly useful metric, because for most people in US, either they have no guns, or they have more than one - and usually more than two. And it's not like owning more guns makes you progressively more likely to use them to hurt or kill someone. Either you have access to a gun and can do it, or you don't and can't. So the metric you really want is the percentage of households with guns.
How about data on the fact that in a country where guns have proliferated (legally or not), there are more gun crimes contrasted with a country in which guns have not proliferated?
How about you try that on some other countries, not just US? For example, Switzerland, where the number of households with guns is higher than US (because of that requirement to keep your service weapon at home), or Czech Republic where concealed carry is legal and widely practiced.
Your problem is that you're picking one differentiator amongs many, find a correlation on a limited set, and then claim that said correlation is causation. It's not. Crime correlates well with the overall poverty of the country, but also with wealth and income disparity. The reason why US has a relatively high crime rate in developed world is not because of guns, but rather because it has unusually high concentration of wealth, very low social mobility, and consequently many poor, disenfranchised people who don't have many prospects in life. This kind of thing breeds crime. Compare that to a well-functioning social democracy like Switzerland, and suddenly guns are a non-factor.
I don't think a country can call itself civilized when it decides that the best way to reduce violent crime is to walk softly and carry a big stick. Why not look at eliminating the root causes of the crime, rather than enabling civilians to shoot criminals?
Why not do both? Self-defense is a human right, so enabling it is a moral imperative regardless of how often it's actually needed in practice.