TheAlphaNerd Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 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." Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 one day when big brother can monitor our brainwaves, we wont even be able to think about people who don't want us to. until then, please feel free to imagine me in a speedo covered in whip cream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 mmmmmm... chocolate sauce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 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 More sharing options...
boiler Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 what the hell is the point of the poke anyway? I never did get that. I'm a married man, I can't just go around poking people on facebook as long as I value my marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewRider Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I'm a married man, I can't just go around poking people on facebook as long as I value my marriage.Doooood, don't let her know your Facebook password and poke 'til you're sore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaggyBalls Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 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 More sharing options...
bradm Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 (edited) 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 October 14, 2009 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hartamophone Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 ... and although BradM just explained why this is obviously contact, consider this: Is poking someone not something more than "no contact". Of course.Judges don't generally go for overly-restrictive semantical distinctions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Judges don't generally go for overly-restrictive semantical distinctions.[color:purple]but lawyers do, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewRider Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Facebook Manners And You - watch more funny videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_llama Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 that real life facebook video is real life awesomePOKKKKKKKKKKKE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 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 More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 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 More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 nah, im just referring to lawyers who say that something isnt legally relevant to specific laws when it may very well be generally relevant to a discussion. that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hartamophone Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 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 More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 I have no way of knowing what you are referring to. You are speaking very vaguely about something specific. It makes it difficult to clarify things.Who are these lawyers? Which laws? What discussions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaggyBalls Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 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 More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 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 More sharing options...
Big Wooly Mammoth Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 can you poke someone if you are not fiends with them on facebook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaggyBalls Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 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 More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now