Facebook User Arrested For a Poke 394
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."
Re:redefining "pokie" (Score:2, Informative)
Okay... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:redefining "pokie" (Score:5, Informative)
You have to confirm pokes. TWO random accidental mouse clicks is highly improbable.
Re:No communication is no communication. (Score:4, Informative)
Is a poke really communication?
I'm thinking of people who send random pokes to their contact lists all the time, without any actual communication meaning to them.
Moreover... poking on Facebook only actually works if the person has added you as their friend.
If you went to court to get a no-contact order against someone else, why the heck would you add or keep them as your friend on facebook?
Everything status update, every message you post shows up as a communication to all your friends... so you're actually initiating contact with them!
Re:And she should get a year (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No communication is no communication. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No communication is no communication. (Score:2, Informative)
Except that unlike real life, on Facebook you can simply ban other users from having any interaction with you, and its quite simple too.
There should be no reason the complainant hadn't already done this and avoided this situation altogether.
Re:And she should get a year (Score:4, Informative)
Facebook Help says:
"What do I do if someone is harassing me on the site or through Inbox?
We suggest that you block the person by listing his or her name in the...
We suggest that you block the person by listing his or her name in the "Blocking People" box at the bottom of the Privacy page. If this does not resolve the problem, please report the user by clicking the 'Report/Block person' link that appears at the bottom of the user's profile. To report a user for a message you have received, use the report link located next to the message in your inbox."
Victim who got the TRO should have blocked that woman from his/her Facebook profile. Then there would have been no poke.
Re:thought you could only poke a friend ? (Score:5, Informative)
You can poke strangers as long as their profile is public, I just checked.
-b
Re:No communication is no communication. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: burden of proof / implications on free speech (Score:5, Informative)
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 [columbuscityattorney.org] 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.
Re:Duh, that's what a restraining order is (Score:5, Informative)
Really, I don't even understand how two women can make love, unless they kind of scissor or something.
Exactly [wikipedia.org]. There's other [wikipedia.org] options [wikipedia.org] too [wikipedia.org].
Re:Okay... (Score:3, Informative)
You can poke non-friends, but that's irrelevant. The point is this: If Bob has been ordered by the court not to contact Sue, and he contacts Sue, he is at fault. Period. It is not up to Sue to prevent Bob from contacting him (she already did that by getting the fucking restraining order in the first place). Bob is responsible for his own actions.
This is an issue of personal responsibility. Yes, there are steps Sue can take to avoid Bob. Yes, some of those steps may be smart things to do. But, even if Sue does not take those steps, it is Bob's fault, and only Bob's fault, if Bob decides to violate the restraining order and contact Sue.
Why is this so difficult for so many people to understand?