- Aug 25, 2007
- 4,168
- 1
- 22,730
Woman Faces Jail Time for Poke on Facebook
- Thread starter JMcEntegart
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Status
every stupid news source has that same idiot title. she got arrested for making communication(which a poke is) and violated the restraining order. if Shannon Jackson had responded to the womans' tweet we'd have a stupid title like "Woman arrested for tweeting".
If she had a restraining order, why were they friends on Facebook in order for the poke to happen? I call bs.
hm.. maybe the police are taking that poke a little too far. Sure she had a restraining order placed on her, but come on like a poke really broke that agreement and hurt either one of those women.
LePhuronn
Distinguished
- Apr 20, 2007
- 327
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]ixfearlessxi[/nom]hm.. maybe the police are taking that poke a little too far. Sure she had a restraining order placed on her, but come on like a poke really broke that agreement and hurt either one of those women.[/citation]
Doesn't matter - as stated in a few times above a poke is still a method of communication as it alerts the recipient to the presence and intent to communicate of the poker. As a result that would break the terms of the protection order.
+1 to gabtdw though - why are they still Facebook friends, unless the recipient had a totally open profile and is pokeable by those not on their friends list.
Doesn't matter - as stated in a few times above a poke is still a method of communication as it alerts the recipient to the presence and intent to communicate of the poker. As a result that would break the terms of the protection order.
+1 to gabtdw though - why are they still Facebook friends, unless the recipient had a totally open profile and is pokeable by those not on their friends list.
joebob2000
Distinguished
- Sep 20, 2006
- 525
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]ixfearlessxi[/nom]but come on like a poke really broke that agreement and hurt either one of those women.[/citation]
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on the perspective) the restraining order law isn't about causing harm *per se*. What is certainly interesting is if they intend to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that she was the one that 'poked'.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on the perspective) the restraining order law isn't about causing harm *per se*. What is certainly interesting is if they intend to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that she was the one that 'poked'.
hellwig
Distinguished
- May 29, 2008
- 817
- 0
- 18,930
If you've been stalked or harassed by an individual, sometimes all that person needs to do is remind you they still exist, and a whole flood of emotions can resurface. Poking can definitely be harassment just like calling and hanging up, or leaving "anonymous" notes. These are all just actions for the abuser to continue to assert their control over the victim.
However, just like girls who dress slutty, this person with the facebook profile was clearly asking for it. If someone is harassing you, the first thing you do is make your profile private (and defriend them). If your neighbor is peeping on you, close the goddamn curtains!!!
However, just like girls who dress slutty, this person with the facebook profile was clearly asking for it. If someone is harassing you, the first thing you do is make your profile private (and defriend them). If your neighbor is peeping on you, close the goddamn curtains!!!
CoryInJapan
Distinguished
- Aug 14, 2008
- 128
- 0
- 18,630
You can poke anyone even if they are not your friend. Unless the profile is private. Which if you have a restraining order on someone it most certainly should be a private profile.
The big question is don't we need to look at 21th century solutions to problems. This is all nice and well for 20th century, but we have moved on.
Companies and governments want to treat the internet as an extension of real life and use old rules to determine how things go on the net. On the net the rules are different.
We have hackers who steal our identity every minute (something we see in real life more often too, but it wasn't so bad 10 years ago).
Also the internet doesn't work like RL. I can put up pictures of brad pitt and well everyone knows I'm not brad pitt, but they won't know who I really am. This kind of anonymity is hard to get in real life. The internet is not as nice as the real world, because people aren't always showing who they really are.
But we still use rules of old that are dated. I agree that she should get fined. She got told the rules and if it can be proven she was it, I see no reason why she should get out of it. But for future restraining orders and other rulings made by judges, they should consider better and maybe make a group to think how to implement old rules. Especially have special rules to apply to the net. As the rules now just are made to fit the net and require some rule bending to apply.
Companies and governments want to treat the internet as an extension of real life and use old rules to determine how things go on the net. On the net the rules are different.
We have hackers who steal our identity every minute (something we see in real life more often too, but it wasn't so bad 10 years ago).
Also the internet doesn't work like RL. I can put up pictures of brad pitt and well everyone knows I'm not brad pitt, but they won't know who I really am. This kind of anonymity is hard to get in real life. The internet is not as nice as the real world, because people aren't always showing who they really are.
But we still use rules of old that are dated. I agree that she should get fined. She got told the rules and if it can be proven she was it, I see no reason why she should get out of it. But for future restraining orders and other rulings made by judges, they should consider better and maybe make a group to think how to implement old rules. Especially have special rules to apply to the net. As the rules now just are made to fit the net and require some rule bending to apply.
Again, this must be pointed out: there are too many lawyers and not enough PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY.
Reminds me of a joke I was told:
A man was looking to make his own type of "Frankenstein's Monster" and was in the market to buy a brain. He made his way to a shady doctor who just so happened to have his required product for sale. He had shown him a mechanic brain, costing $150 per US lb. And then he was shown an engineer brain, costing $250 per US lb. After that he was introduced to lawyer brain, costing $5000 per US lb.
The scientist asked the organ dealer, "Why does a lawyer brain cost so much more than anything other?"
Mr. organ dealer responds quite sternly, "Do you know how hard it is to find a lawyer with a brain?"
Reminds me of a joke I was told:
A man was looking to make his own type of "Frankenstein's Monster" and was in the market to buy a brain. He made his way to a shady doctor who just so happened to have his required product for sale. He had shown him a mechanic brain, costing $150 per US lb. And then he was shown an engineer brain, costing $250 per US lb. After that he was introduced to lawyer brain, costing $5000 per US lb.
The scientist asked the organ dealer, "Why does a lawyer brain cost so much more than anything other?"
Mr. organ dealer responds quite sternly, "Do you know how hard it is to find a lawyer with a brain?"
purplerat
Distinguished
- Jul 18, 2006
- 15
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]gabtdw[/nom]If she had a restraining order, why were they friends on Facebook in order for the poke to happen? I call bs.[/citation]
No BS needed. People usually have restraining orders against people whom they know and were probably at one time on good terms with. Also a lot of people don't "live" on Facebook, constantly updating their status, friends, whatever. Chances are the two were friends on Facebook, had a falling out which led to the restraining order but neither bothered to remove the other from Facebook or other social networking sites. A poke - I'm guessing - would send some sort of notification to the person being contacted who might otherwise not have realized the connection still existed on Facebook.
No BS needed. People usually have restraining orders against people whom they know and were probably at one time on good terms with. Also a lot of people don't "live" on Facebook, constantly updating their status, friends, whatever. Chances are the two were friends on Facebook, had a falling out which led to the restraining order but neither bothered to remove the other from Facebook or other social networking sites. A poke - I'm guessing - would send some sort of notification to the person being contacted who might otherwise not have realized the connection still existed on Facebook.
mastadisasta_31
Distinguished
- Apr 7, 2009
- 5
- 0
- 18,510
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Are bone conduction headphones really worth it for workouts and outdoor use in 2026?
- Started by Jane Markoz
- Replies: 2
-
Question Connecting Nokia Streaming Box 8000, Sony Home theater and TV- Started by Eliesonmike7782
- Replies: 1
-
-
Question dslr camera for beginners-Expert recommendations to choose- Started by eiman
- Replies: 3
-
Question Deleted photos trying to access specific folder
- Started by Zuhaar
- Replies: 1
-
Question Interactive walkthroughs vs Screen recordings for user onboarding?
- Started by lordam
- Replies: 6
Facebook
Twitter