Jump to content
Jambands.ca

Facebook user arrested for a poke


TheAlphaNerd
 Share

Recommended Posts

Let's put this in perspective. She was busted for a breach of a court order not to contact this person. It really doesn't matter whether it is a phone call, Facebook poke, or singing telegram. She violated the court order by contacting the person.

Big Brother comments are not applicable here. It was simply enforcement of a court order, as in any other case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A poke is not a contact, a poke is an invitation for THEM to contact.

the poke is one step in between actual contact, as there is no communication (as that takes 2 and a poke is just a notice that the person just clicked a mouse button)

Looking at the potential imprisonment, I'm more on the side of the accused on this one, even if that lady was a twit/twat. Since I don't know the story and don't care to it's more of the issue of questionable criminality and the potential desctruction of a life because of said questionable criminality.

'cut and dry' is a way of pushing compassion away in one's busy day.

Poor twit/twat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A poke is not a contact, a poke is an invitation for THEM to contact.

the poke is one step in between actual contact, as there is no communication.

I'd agree with you if the "poke" had been sent (i.e., initiated) by Facebook itself, as some kind of automated "match-up" service (based on its knowledge of common interests, or common friends, or whatever). The fact that the act of sending the "poke" was initiated and performed by the accused seems to make it meet a reasonable definition of being communicative. (And not just communicative: it was communicate from the accused to the other party, which was what was specifically barred by the court order.)

Aloha,

Brad

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the person who doesn't want to be contacted: I'm hitting you with my cluebat. If you go to the expense and effort of getting a court order, take 30 seconds on Facebook to block the person you find offensive.

If a poke comes from a new account, that's another matter, but if it's from a known quantity, I'd hope the judge gives them both the hairy eyeball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Not good ones who like to win.

If you're referring to the odd anomalous contractual interpretation case, in which punctuation is found to matter, that is the exception.

In almost any case that someone tries to skirt the "spirit" of a court order by way of an overly restrictive interpretation, though, the court will tend to find in favour of the wider interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Not good ones who like to win.

If you're referring to the odd anomalous contractual interpretation case, in which punctuation is found to matter, that is the exception.

In almost any case that someone tries to skirt the "spirit" of a court order by way of an overly restrictive interpretation, though, the court will tend to find in favour of the wider interpretation.

Hell yeah, Elmer Driedger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the person who doesn't want to be contacted: I'm hitting you with my cluebat. If you go to the expense and effort of getting a court order, take 30 seconds on Facebook to block the person you find offensive.

If a poke comes from a new account, that's another matter, but if it's from a known quantity, I'd hope the judge gives them both the hairy eyeball.

That's the kind of necessary compromise that makes the grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's brilliant. How could anyone argue with that? ...

Unless even the most basic example were considered...

... for instance, a woman is tortured by a man for years. She escapes. He continues to call her, send her letters, drive by her house... She can't sleep. She is afraid to go out. She fears for her children...

Ultimately she gets a court order, after years of hell. The court order says he cannot contact her. She finally begins to feel safe.

She logs into Facebook. He's poked her.

She should just get over it, eh? Just block his account and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably safe to say that the twit this thread is about is not a stalking psycho torturer.

If it were there would be no issue of triviality of a Facebook Poke.

Of course the lawyer finds an example to prove that point in one scenario, but with a potential for years to be served in prison, an argument demands a degree of congruity that the terrified tortured mother example sorely lacks.

Good show!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A court was convinced a no contact order was appropriate after reviewing the circumstances. I gave you one example of when that would happen. In every case that such an order is handed down, someone had to convince a court it was appropriate under the circumstances, such as the example I gave you.

How many scenarios do you need me to prove it in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...