Internet Law
Did Court Order Ban Facebook ‘Poke’?
Posted Oct 13, 2009 4:49 PM CST
By Martha Neil
When Shannon Jackson was told she couldn't contact another woman in Tennessee, she apparently may not have realized that the court order included a virtual "poke" on Facebook.
Now she does. The 36-year-old woman has been arrested and charged with violating a Sumner County General Sessions Court protective order that called for her to refrain from “no telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner," reports the Hendersonville Star News.
Although Jackson's lawyer, lawyer, Lawren Lassiter, tells ABC News that his client was shocked by the charge, residential fellow Ryan Calo of Stanford Law School's Center for Internet & Society says a virtual contact on the social networking site should indeed fall within the coverage of the protective order.
"A poke is a very deliberate action," he tells the network. "You have to select the person and say, 'this is what I want to do.'"
If convicted of the misdemeanor, Jackson could be sentenced to as much as one day short of a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
Nicky
Oct 14, 2009 7:17 AM CST
If the court order says “no communicating” wouldn’t -poking- someone on Facebook mean that the person did use a form of communication? That’s how I see it, so the person should have thought twice.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Oct 15, 2009 11:59 PM CST
Aye. Thinking even once might have prevented this.
Flag this comment
Shane
Oct 21, 2009 6:00 AM CST
The real question is why were they Facebook friends in the first place? In order to ‘poke’ someone, you must be connected to them. The other person had just as much responsibility to defriend them. If I’m going to get a protective order against someone, then I need to do my duty and stay away myself!
Flag this comment
Richard
Oct 21, 2009 8:20 AM CST
I’m in the same boat with #3. Although there is no perfect real-world analogy, not blocking someone on facebook that you’ve gone to the trouble to get a protective order against, and indeed remaining ‘friends’ with that person after doing so, smacks of showing up to the bowling league or other social event where you know that person to be. Moreover, depending on what settings you have, you’re sending them information about yourself every time you or someone else adds something to your profile and visa-versa. I would advocate for a light penalty in light of the circumstances.
Flag this comment
Laura
Oct 21, 2009 9:37 AM CST
In the court where I primarily practice, judges say “No contact means NO CONTACT. Do not contact this person on Facebook, on MySpace, etc.”
Flag this comment
BMF
Oct 21, 2009 11:27 AM CST
A better analogy might be if the person who requested the protective order showed up at a public place where she knew the defendant would likely be present, and then complained that the defendant came within 25 feet of her—or otherwise violated the protective order. Anyone know how TN law might apply in this situation?
Incidents like this one point up the need to drag the judiciay kicking and screaming into the 21st century. At the very least, attorneys must inform themselves so they may better educate judges who are faces with applying common law theories to technical concepts
Flag this comment
bg
Oct 21, 2009 6:35 PM CST
As annoying as pokes can be, it is not as if it was a threatening or harassing message. The court should scold both the poker and the complainer, then tell them both to get a life that does not involve the other!
Flag this comment
arman
Oct 22, 2009 8:51 AM CST
Please never use “smacks” in a sentence again!!!!! I mean, it’s acceptable if you are talking about how you “smacks your ho up” or something like that, but please please please never use it in a law related comment. It’s totally unacceptable.
Flag this comment
BL1Y
Oct 22, 2009 10:40 AM CST
Odds are if the protected women had behaved in a rational manner, such as defriending the woman when the relationship went sour, there would never have been a need for a court order in the first place. But, all too often, people like to keep toxic relationships and either provoke spats or at least provide the opportunity for conflict.
That being said, no contact means no contact. Ms. Jackson probably thought she was sneaking around the court order. She was in the wrong and her actions were stupid.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.