PSA: Facebook 'Poke' may violate that restraining order

[FoBoT]

http://www.tennessean.com/arti...8/MICRO060301/91008066
http://www.thetechherald.com/a...uld-cost-you-jail-time

If someone has a restraining order against you, don't "Poke" them on Facebook, you may end up in jail

Shannon D. Jackson, 36, was arrested Friday, Sept. 25 for allegedly violating an order of protection.

According to the affidavit filed in Sumner County General Sessions Court, Jackson is accused of using the ?poke? option on Facebook to contact a Hendersonville woman, thus violating the terms of the order of protection, which stipulates ?no telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner.?

Poking is a feature unique to Facebook that conveys no other message but informing a user they have been ?poked? by another user.

if this is upheld, it makes sense that it would translate to forums, like ATOT, so PM'ing someone or posting in their thread, should also be a restraining order violation

 

[JS80]

lulz

 

[Zenmervolt]

I'm not so sure this is funny or frivolous. If you have a creepy stalker and you've had to file a restraining order, even something as apparently minor as a "poke" on Facebook is effectively a reminder that this stalker is still out there watching you.

ZV

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
http://www.tennessean.com/arti...8/MICRO060301/91008066
http://www.thetechherald.com/a...uld-cost-you-jail-time

If someone has a restraining order against you, don't "Poke" them on Facebook, you may end up in jail

Shannon D. Jackson, 36, was arrested Friday, Sept. 25 for allegedly violating an order of protection.

According to the affidavit filed in Sumner County General Sessions Court, Jackson is accused of using the ?poke? option on Facebook to contact a Hendersonville woman, thus violating the terms of the order of protection, which stipulates ?no telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner.?

Poking is a feature unique to Facebook that conveys no other message but informing a user they have been ?poked? by another user.

if this is upheld, it makes sense that it would translate to forums, like ATOT, so PM'ing someone or posting in their thread, should also be a restraining order violation

Is there really any question that PMing someone would qualify as "otherwise communicating with" them?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I'm not so sure this is funny or frivolous. If you have a creepy stalker and you've had to file a restraining order, even something as apparently minor as a "poke" on Facebook is effectively a reminder that this stalker is still out there watching you.

ZV

:thumbsup:

This is a no-brainer.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Poking could be entirely accidental too. Does it ask you to confirm before it does it?

 

[Killerme33]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Poking could be entirely accidental too. Does it ask you to confirm before it does it?

Yes, it does.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Poking could be entirely accidental too. Does it ask you to confirm before it does it?

It's as entirely accidental as "accidentally" sending someone an email, making a phone call, or sending a text message. If there is a restraining order against you, the obvious thing to do is delete that person as a contact in every single form of communication you engage in.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I'm not so sure this is funny or frivolous. If you have a creepy stalker and you've had to file a restraining order, even something as apparently minor as a "poke" on Facebook is effectively a reminder that this stalker is still out there watching you.

ZV

If the restraining order says "stay 500 feet away from" then a poke shouldn't be a problem, but if the order states "shall not contact in any way" I don't see how a poke gets around that language.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I'm not so sure this is funny or frivolous. If you have a creepy stalker and you've had to file a restraining order, even something as apparently minor as a "poke" on Facebook is effectively a reminder that this stalker is still out there watching you.

ZV

If the restraining order says "stay 500 feet away from" then a poke shouldn't be a problem, but if the order states "shall not contact in any way" I don't see how a poke gets around that language.

From the article:

?no telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner.?

Seems pretty cut-and-dried.

ZV

 

[gorcorps]

Pretty dumb violation, but I think it's a good law. Regardless of the exact words of the restraining order, it's a simple concept that you MUST leave that person alone or face the consequences. He didn't, so he deserves what he gets.

 

[HybridSquirrel]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Poking could be entirely accidental too. Does it ask you to confirm before it does it?

if they are on you friends list it doesnt require a confirmation. at least for me

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: HybridSquirrel

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Poking could be entirely accidental too. Does it ask you to confirm before it does it?

if they are on you friends list it doesnt require a confirmation. at least for me

You can't really poke somebody unless you're looking at their profile... and if this guy was creeping around her profile then he probably still deserved it.

 

[HybridSquirrel]

Originally posted by: gorcorps

Originally posted by: HybridSquirrel

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Poking could be entirely accidental too. Does it ask you to confirm before it does it?

if they are on you friends list it doesnt require a confirmation. at least for me

You can't really poke somebody unless you're looking at their profile... and if this guy was creeping around her profile then he probably still deserved it.

yeah, but i was just responding to his confirm comment.

 

[AreaCode707]

Poking is direct and intentional contact between people. That's what it's intended to be, why it was designed. It's clearly a violation of both the spirit and letter of a restraining order.

 

[sutahz]

a poke is a communication. My common sense says the person could post in a thread the other is in (or created) but they couldn't address the person they have a restraining order aginst directly.

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: HybridSquirrel

Originally posted by: gorcorps

Originally posted by: HybridSquirrel

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Poking could be entirely accidental too. Does it ask you to confirm before it does it?

if they are on you friends list it doesnt require a confirmation. at least for me

You can't really poke somebody unless you're looking at their profile... and if this guy was creeping around her profile then he probably still deserved it.

yeah, but i was just responding to his confirm comment.

Right, I was just responding to the 'accidental' part of it all

 

[Phoenix86]

I wouldn't be surprised if simply viewing her page (perhaps several times) would violate the order...

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
I wouldn't be surprised if simply viewing her page (perhaps several times) would violate the order...

good point, if the IP address of the 'bad guy' shows up in either server logs for the 'protected person' web page or firewall logs for the 'protected person' home router, that should violate the order, it would demonstrate intent to continue stalking them

 

[Pepsei]

correct me if i'm wrong, the "victim" and the "perp" are both females?

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
correct me if i'm wrong, the "victim" and the "perp" are both females?

apparently

Jackson was transported to Sumner County Jail. Her bond was set at $1,500. She is scheduled to appear in Sumner County General Sessions Court in Gallatin on Oct. 28.

 

[PokerGuy]

Sounds like a good thing to me... a poke is no different than other forms of communication. Which part of "don't communicate with that person anymore" wasn't clear?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
I wouldn't be surprised if simply viewing her page (perhaps several times) would violate the order...

good point, if the IP address of the 'bad guy' shows up in either server logs for the 'protected person' web page or firewall logs for the 'protected person' home router, that should violate the order, it would demonstrate intent to continue stalking them

That may or may not be true and would probably depend on the specifics of the order of protection, but this is a case of a person being prohibited from communicating with someone, and she deliberately communicated with her anyway. If you're trying to make some sort of slippery slope argument, which appears to be the case from your OP, then I think you've done a poor job.

 

[ahenkel]

thankfully I cancelled my facebook account.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Sounds like a good thing to me... a poke is no different than other forms of communication. Which part of "don't communicate with that person anymore" wasn't clear?

Your username wins the thread.