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