http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/tennessee-woman-arrested-facebook-poke/story?id=8807685
:lulz:
:pokewithstick:
Well, she DID have a protection order against her, and the poke was clearly a violation of that. It's sort of the digital equivalent of leaving your calling-card in someone's door, ie. creepy as fuck if you've been court-ordered to leave them alone.
You can't poke people who aren't your "friends", right? I'm surprised the other woman hadn't un-friended her. Maybe she didn't know how.
seems quite clear to me:
The protective order against Jackson, filed on June 10, prohibited her from "telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner, directly or indirectly,"
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 12, 2009, 06:44:39 PM
seems quite clear to me:
The protective order against Jackson, filed on June 10, prohibited her from "telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner, directly or indirectly,"
But Facebook must be exempt from that, because it's on the Internet, and the Internet isn't contact, right? Besides, everything that happens on the Internet must necessarily be trivial or unbelievable!
I think you can poke people who aren't on your friends list if they don't have all their privacy settings set up or some shit.
But for real, poking someone who has a freaking injunction against you is just creepy.
No contact means no contact.
By phone, letter, e-mail, 3rd party, whatever.
Yeah, but if I included that in the title it would have been less interesting and not funny.
Should have maybe gone more puerile - "Woman Arrested For Poking"
or Creepy-Puerile - "Woman Arrested For Malicious Poking"
...
I would have laughed, but I laugh at Frankie Boyle jokes all the time.
Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on October 13, 2009, 01:35:59 AM
Yeah, but if I included that in the title it would have been less interesting and not funny.
true