Poking ought to be off-limits. The purpose of a restraining order is to protect the individual from having to deal with the offender, either physically or emotionally. Even if all you are doing is "poking" the person, you are bringing back a whole slew of bad memories to the defendant. And that's the reason restraining orders exist in the first place.
Name
· 1 month ago
totally agree, people like this need to be stopped from all methods of communicating, this is the downside of social networking
Jorge Fiffe
· 1 month ago
It isn't the downside of social networking, it's the downside of stupid people who use social networking.
Michelle Potter
· 1 month ago
Agreed. This is no more a downside of social networking than it is a downside of telephones. The communication media should not be faulted for this user's misconduct, no matter what media it is.
John LoFranco
· 1 month ago
Completely agree. Poke or no poke, when social media networking falls into the hands of dumb people, rarely should the public be surprised at the outcome.
Michael
· 1 month ago
Indeed, regardless of whether some people think this is over the top common sense would dictate to anyone *not* maliciously looking to cause harm that interacting in any way with someone you're not allowed to contact is a bad idea.
lorismith
· 1 month ago
She should have just Blocked this person out !! This is the kinda B.S that just slows down the courts and clogs up the system. Poking LOL . Come on people there are alot bigger issues out there rather than Poking! Sh*t.
baekdal
· 1 month ago
No, if you are forbidden by the courts to contact another person, then that certainly includes poking on Facebook. The whole idea with such a court order is to give the 'victim' peace of mind, to never again have to worry about that person.
John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises)
· 1 month ago
Interestingly enough, this would not only apply to a Facebook poke, but even to a retweet, since the retweet would appear in the original person's timeline.
baekdal
· 1 month ago
Good point!
Michelle Potter
· 1 month ago
They do? If I am not following someone, and they retweet something I said, it shows up in my timeline?
Name
· 1 month ago
No, but it would show up in your @replies.
John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises)
· 1 month ago
Yes. I get all sorts of mentionspam from non-followers that state my Twitter handle and then sell their junk. Retweets with your Twitter handle would do the same.
iquanyin
· 1 month ago
yes, because anything with @(your user name) goes into your @ messages. and the format is "RT @(your user name) blah blah blah" or some variant of it.
Name
· 1 month ago
This is much less clear. Since a retweet isn't aimed specifically at the user. Even worse, if the person is restrained from contacting John Doe and they tweet "@johndoe is a real jerk" you'll have on one hand the restraining order, and on the other hand a freedom of speech issue. Not clear which one would win.
Michelle Potter
· 1 month ago
Thanks everyone for explaining to me how that works. I rarely use Twitter.
Name, I don't think there's necessarily a conflict between free speech and the restraining order in your example, since the person under the order is allowed to say anything they want, they are only limited in who they say it to. If they are NOT allowed to tweet "@johndoe is a real jerk," but ARE allowed to tweet "johndoe is a real jerk," then the only difference is whether they sent the message TO John Doe. Kind of like the difference between standing in the street shouting, "John Doe is a real jerk!" and actually walking up to John Doe and saying it to his face. It's not the speech being restricted, just the contact.
I do get your point about whether retweeting should be considered contact, since the PURPOSE of retweeting is to forward John Doe's tweets on to OTHER people, not to contact John Doe. (Although, as I said before, you could just take out the @ and sidestep the whole issue.) But if you were a smarter tweeter than I, you'd know that retweets would go back to John Doe's timeline, and it would be easy to continue harassing him by retweeting everything he says. Just a way of saying that no matter what John Doe does, even get a restraining order, he can never get the harasser out of his life. Which is really just the sort of thing that a restraining order is supposed to at least TRY to prevent.
RevMike
· 1 month ago
But isn't retweeting something that a restraining order is supposed to promote??!!!!!! (sorry, that has to be the lamest joke I ever came up with! Shame on me! :-P )
Nillabeast
· 1 month ago
That's not entirely true. The purpose is generally for safet purposesy, and restraining orders have strict time limitations. "Never again," is kind of a stretch, just like making poking a felony.
Besides, if she was so emotioally vulnerable, why were they FB friends?
nillabeast
· 1 month ago
Excuse the typos, its 3am
August_95
· 1 month ago
If someone does not want to hear from you enought to take out an order of protection, Poking them is just as much a violation of that term as texting, emailing, phoning or writing a letter. The feeling of being harassed is not a nice one. Contact is contact.
Mehboob Kasim
· 1 month ago
Since the defendant took out a restraining order, why did she still have the defendant on her list of FB friends?
tenofzero
· 1 month ago
The whole idea of poking someone is to give them access to your profile to see if you want to become friends. You do NOT have to be freinds to poke someone, in fact that kinda defeats the purpose.
iquanyin
· 1 month ago
finally i learn the porpose of poking! thx.
Jeff
· 1 month ago
To keep her friend count higher...duh
Kelly
· 1 month ago
you don't have to be on someone's friends list to poke them...
Lica
· 1 month ago
Correct, you don't have to be FB friends to Poke but... you CAN block ANYone who uses Facebook. Whether they contact you or not becomes irrelevant because you won't know about it.
Steve Wales
· 1 month ago
I agree that poking is communication. But if you've gone to the trouble of taking out a 'no contact' restraining order against someone, wouldn't you also have just blocked them on Facebook?
iquanyin
· 1 month ago
i could easily see having a lot on your mind if you're having to take out restraining orders. you might overlook the facebook thing.
Double0seven27
· 1 month ago
If she's gonna go to jail over it she should at least have the option of giving the lady a Facebook "nipple twist" !
Super Carly
· 1 month ago
Don't you have to be a friend with a person to poke them? Why did the person with the restraining order allow herself to be friends with Jackson on Facebook in the first place? Madness.
ConnorJack
· 1 month ago
Wow!
People Search
· 1 month ago
She just had to violate a court order with a Facebook poke.
Name
· 1 month ago
So why were they FB friends?
Jeff
· 1 month ago
I find myself asking the same question...
Andrew
· 1 month ago
You don't have to be friends on facebook to poke someone.
Carolyn Chan
· 1 month ago
exactly. case dismiss.
johnsv
· 1 month ago
the women who was poked, if under protection, should have changed her settings and/or blocked the individual in question the individual in question is a douche it seems, too
unfortunate one
· 1 month ago
but it's not the duty of the "victim". It's all set up to blackball the other individual. it usually comes down to a he/she said argument and whoever contacts the police and a lawyer first often wins. then the accused party cannot claim the same thing against the other person even if he/she is repeatedly trying to 'contact the abuser'. if he/she answers, the victim has him and he's usually going to jail and have his bond revoked. often it's a form of entrapment, especially when kids are involved.
Justin Threlkeld
· 1 month ago
Wait... if there was an order of protection, then why were they facebook friends? Last time I checked, you could only poke people that you're friends with.
unfortunate one
· 1 month ago
because they were friends to begin with. if somebody does this to you, you need to immediately sever all ties to this person, even if that means severing ties as well to mutual friends.
Amy
· 1 month ago
I thought of that and just checked...if the profile is public, you can click on the "Poke So-and-So" button. Or at least I had the clickable link cursor...didn't actually poke the person.
Name
· 1 month ago
You don't have to be friends to poke someone! No contact means no contact. The victim has no duties to keep their stalker from contacting them. If everyone would understand that protective orders are not handed out like candy and that judges consider all sides before issue AND if everyone would understand the order clearly states NO CONTACT then there is no arguing for the fb poker. SHE WAS CLEARLY IN VIOLATION and should get some help. Let's stand up for the the victim here!
davidohayon
· 1 month ago
She should have been arrested for using that old feature
Babaloo
· 1 month ago
How can you poke someone if you're not "friends" with them on FB in the first place? Why have a protection order (is this similar to a restraining order?) against someone if you're still "friends" with them on FB?
unfortunate one
· 1 month ago
it's a baiting technique. the lawyers will suggest doing it. cut all ties
Name
· 1 month ago
while I agree you shouldn't poke if you have a restraining order, don't you have to be "friends" to poke? Seems like someone should be de-friending someone in this story.....
Name
· 1 month ago
She did "defriend" her once she found out the "poker" was having an affair with her husband. Can't say I blame her at all for turning her in.
bigmag
· 1 month ago
hey i don't use facebook. is poking legal or not? the sentence meted out is brutal. how the hell does a poker knows if an indivdual is under the order of protection? should'n't such dangerous button be remove and what if someone clicked by mistake? the jailed woman seems more like a victim to me! i don't get it. justice justice!!! cry
Michelle Potter
· 1 month ago
BigMag, you seem to misunderstand what the order of protection means. The "poker," Shannon Jackson, had already been ordered by a court that she was not to have any contact with the woman she poked (whose name is not given in the article for obvious reasons.) This happened because the other woman brought a claim against Jackson in court, and a judge explicitly ordered Jackson not to contact the other woman in any way. The article doesn't say why, and I don't know what burden of proof is required, if any, to get such an order, but typically such orders are meant to protect someone who is being stalked, harassed, or abused in some way. Judges don't just issue such orders for the fun of it, and there's no way Jackson wasn't warned that violating the order was a misdemeanor that could result in up to 11 months and 29 days in jail. Furthermore, I am pretty certain that in order to "poke" someone on Facebook, you have to either go to their profile (which Jackson shouldn't have been doing), or choose that person to receive a poke when using some kind of "poking" app.
So this means that Jackson a) was doing something along the lines of stalking, harassing, or abusing this other woman, enough to make her seek an order of protection; b) was court-ordered to have NO further contact with the other woman and knew good and well that a violation of that would land her in jail; and c) chose to send a Facebook poke to a woman she KNEW she wasn't even supposed to wave to on the street. She probably figured that she'd get away with it, that if the other woman complained no one would take a Facebook poke seriously. But no contact means no contact, and excepting Facebook pokes would just give Jackson a legitimate avenue by which to continue to harass her victim.
Jason Rukus
· 1 month ago
It sounds funny at first but I believe this is a just case. Shannon was ordered not to communicate with this woman in any way shape of form and she violated that. Poke, prod, paper airplane, carrier pigeon, ninja singing telegram... She can't communicate with her.
Vicky
· 1 month ago
I wonder if we'll ever get to a point where Facebook quizzes are used against us. Can you imagine if the FB poker took the "Are you likely to be a serial killer" or any of the other random quizzes that can now probably be used against her in court. Just a thought...
unfortunate one
· 1 month ago
those are silly question and not ones based on any scientific testing methods that I'm aware of. Though I have started deleting some of those so prospective and current employers do not see that, or try to block them from reading it or getting updates
Jacob Pritchett
· 1 month ago
They do! The Secret Service is currently investigating (or perhaps they're finished now) the creation of a Facebook quiz that asked if President Obama should be assassinated.
Leigh
· 1 month ago
They already did research it. Last I had heard, it was created by a minor and so no legal action was taken and he claims he did it "as a joke".
Unless another poll was made?
Jacob Pritchett
· 1 month ago
No, I'm sure that's the poll. Makes perfect sense, but if they're going to investigate things like this, they should at least try their best to not publicize them.
It's just plain silly.
That Girl
· 1 month ago
That is terrifyingly true. What has political correctness reduced us to?
susiesharp
· 1 month ago
Some people just feel compelled to push their limits, step over that line in the sand. The woman has boundary issues as well, I bet.
unfortunate one
· 1 month ago
unfortunately, yes it is. if you have a no-contact order of any kind, immediately block that person and possibly any friends you 2 share, because if you read a post that they sent to a friend, it can still being interpreted that you've had contact w/this other person who has a no-contact, gag, or restraining order against you. Any violations will send you to jail, plus probably added charges of electronic surveillance (a felony), for reading or access to any form of electronic communication this person sends out that was not for you. Even ignore anything they send you or contact your lawyer, then probation officer immediately as soon as you find out what has happened and explain the situation clearly
iquanyin
· 1 month ago
how would someone know if you read or didn't read a post?
Si Mon
· 1 month ago
there's no time or date stamp associated with facebook pokes. who's to say the poke isn't old and the woman simply left it there un-answered and only bought it up till now?
also, old news.
unfortunate one
· 1 month ago
facebook will have a timestamp and will give up your ass. sad fact.
Alex Reynolds
· 1 month ago
the charge seems well within normal rights. it is communicating.
Felipe Scolari
· 1 month ago
Lol
LawrenceRoth
· 1 month ago
If person A has a protection order against person B and person B uses Facebook, twitter, or other means to contact that person, that would be a violation of the protection order and person B needs to prosecuted for it.
As much as I enjoy the Internet I think the law should be protecting people against certain actions, which would be illegal in the real world (like harassment, libel, etc.) However, net neutrality needs to remain in place without big business turning the Internet into a profit machine where only big business profits.
tweetamar
· 1 month ago
I'm surprised to find out pokes still existed!
Irene glover
· 1 month ago
Definately. This person was banned from contact for a reason and thought they could get round the law by poking. Good, hope they get extra time for being cocky.
gregory
· 1 month ago
have to give you props. You definitely got me with the sensationalist headline, then bored me to tears with a restraining order violation case. Yawn.
dgreen416
· 1 month ago
You can't poke a non friend...why were they linked in friendship. Also try proving that the offender did it. any one could have accessed her open facebook acct.
Name
· 1 month ago
While agree 100% with the article, I am baffled that if there was someone I filed an order of protection from...WHY WOULDN'T YOU DEFRIEND THEM? Without being your friend, they can't do anything to you, except send a message. And if you block their account, they won't even be able to see/access you.
unfortunate one
· 1 month ago
but as the victim, you want that person to violate the order, so you leave these possible ties over for entrapment. if you received the order against you, you must protect your own ass. even receiving any information from this person, even if it goes out to all friends, can put you in jeopardy of going back to jail and possibly having this order against you extended for an indefinite amount of time.
Michelle Potter
· 1 month ago
I am sorry that someone apparently twisted the system as a way to lash out at you, but that is no reason to generalize against everyone who takes out a protection order. Many people who take out such orders really are victims and actually do just want the other person to leave them alone.
vickypaz
· 1 month ago
I agree! Using the “poke” option on Facebook is a new way to contact people.
stephena
· 1 month ago
Poking was obviously a violation of the court order. What if she had poked repeatedly, over and over again? That would be harassment. If someone calls on the phone JUST ONCE, or even emails, that's considered "contact." So yes, it's "contact" to poke.
wkriski
· 1 month ago
We need to start arresting if someone does a quiz or makes me install an application. :)
Kazok
· 1 month ago
obviously the woman concerned didn;t want to be contacted so yes, the logic is correct and she was poked! end of.
MM
· 1 month ago
No. Really. She took the time and effort to obtain a restraining order, yet failed to BLOCK the offender? Really? What a waste of time and resources.
unfortunate one
· 1 month ago
her lawyer will say to leave these lines of communication open in order to entrap the other individual. you must be in control of saving your own ass, not expect the person who wants you to be locked away do it of her own accord.
mimi
· 1 month ago
I'm absolutely with Justin Threlkeld - if the other woman really wanted to stop contact she had to delete their friendship on facebook! then any request for friendship or personal message would have been an offend. that no-contact-petition makes absolutely no sense this way!
Guest
· 1 month ago
Ha Ha ROFL
wkirkcrawford
· 1 month ago
Some people are naive, while others are just plane stupid. And they don't know when to leave well enough alone. Little or no respect for others.
I can't believe this woman was so STUPID as to initiate contact with someone who has a restraining order against her!!! It seems like all she's interested in doing is antagonizing people, and if she's doing nothing but antagonizing people, then yeah, I'd get a restraining order against her too! No contact with the petitioner (the person requesting the RO) MEANS just that... NO CONTACT with the petitioner... not even "poking" someone on Facebook!
Facebook User
· 1 month ago
She broke the law, she got arrested. Seems fine to me.
1stAngel
· 1 month ago
you cant poke non friends, so why was she friends with this person? How ridiculous.
Bob
· 1 month ago
Some applications let you poke non-friends, Look at "Arena". It is only in the app, but it would certainly violate any order of protection
pauljimerson
· 1 month ago
Absolutely; it was a form of communication. The idea that she could go to jail for it is another matter; that is absurd and unacceptable.
Gerald Boerner
· 1 month ago
I think that poking in this case DOES constitute an attempt to communicate, but the funny thing is this: why didn't the person 'de-friend' the woman in the first place!
Richard Soper
· 1 month ago
The law is the law. Dumb ass should have just left the person alone
Tyhesha
· 1 month ago
this is a little bit dumb if you ask me this woman that went agasint the peace bond by "Poking" the other woman?? anyone who uses facebook knows you cannot send a poke if you dont have the person as a friend on facebook.... sorry but if that was me common sense would be to take the person you have the peace bond on off your facbook cell phone eamil etc.. if you dont your just asking for "drama"....this is just my personal thought no disrespect to anyone else opinion :D
Name
· 1 month ago
here's the deal, if the defendant knew there was a protection order against her, then why would she poke someonem, and second, y didn't the other person block her... HELLO!!!!!! to quote forest gump, "STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES...!!!!!"
wuttf
· 1 month ago
testttttttt
guy
· 1 month ago
How did the other woman get a restraining order but still have her on her friend list. I find that a bit weird. She may have had a completely open profile and not blocked her which is also a bit strange. I'd have security on it if I was being stalked, or even if I wasn't.
Something about this story doesn't quite sound right
John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises)
· 1 month ago
This definitely falls into the "otherwise communicating" portion of the court order. No communication means no communication.
Allison
· 1 month ago
That was definitely inappropriate--a no contact order means NO contact and obviously this woman was harrassing her otherwise there wouldn't have been a no contact order to begin with--although logically I would think the victim should've blocked the offender so no contact could have been made through Facebook.
Anyone who has been the victim of domestic violence or other forms of harrassment would know that as innocent as an FB poke may seem, it was intended to harrass the victim.
mshubes
· 1 month ago
Our justice system is in dire need of a revamp. This is pure idiocy.
Arthur Sabintsev
· 1 month ago
She deserved it. She violated a court order. Simple as that.
AlexisCeule
· 1 month ago
Why didn't the Hendersonville woman simply block her? lol... no poking, sending mafia war or yoville crap... works for the rest of us. LOL
Julia
· 1 month ago
Isn't it correct that in order to poke someone you have to be on their friend list? If that's the case than what the hell was she doing by still having her on the list?
Chris Record
· 1 month ago
This case should be thrown out of court immediately because the recipient of the poke personally "chose" to continue to be "facebook friends" with this person, when they could easily have removed them as a friend and the poke could not have possibly occured!
This is a case in which people in a position of power and authority show how uneducated they are when it comes to how social media works. The bond needs to be completely waived and they need to apologize to Shannon Jackson. Seriously, I have seen numerous situations where pokes have occurred without the user even knowing that they poked someone. This feature should be removed from Facebook as it is completely pointless and hopefully this story moves them to action.
In my opinion, Shannon D. Jackson is innocent and should not have to face any penalties as a result. People should not be arrested for silly nonsense like this and it's sad to see that these types of actions are able to be carried out by uneducated law officials.
In related thought, I have seen people literally "freak out" about information they see in their news feed because they think that all of their friends can see that information and they are confusing it with their profile feed. They do not understand that it is simply a stream of posts from their friends, and that the home screen is not visible to anyone else, only their profile page is.
I would definitely push hard on this issue if I were Shannon Jackson because of the inconvenience she has had to face as a result of something so ridiculous!
Dee
· 1 month ago
It's ridiculous! The other woman could have blocked any communication coming from her. Now things are really getting stupid. I'm bloggin' about this one!
Rawmazing
· 1 month ago
I agree with the courts from the little information we have here. There must have been something very serious going on or the courts wouldn't have issued an order of protection. She tried to reach around the order by "poking" the person that was supposed to be protected. Psychologically disturbed? Fixated?
Jamie
· 1 month ago
its the pokey for the poker
Jamie
· 1 month ago
its the pokey for the poker. If she did it she was in violation
faryl
· 1 month ago
A poke is definitely a form of contact & should be considered a violation.
How would she even plan on defending herself? If someone has a restraining order against you, what are you doing aggitating them with something as petty as a poke? On top of illegal - it's passive agressive!
On a side note: have you read the comments on the original post? Seems like a few of the commentors know the parties involved. Kind of entertaining (in a trainwreck sort of way!)
Lottie
· 1 month ago
In this case, a poke=pokey
Jillian C. York
· 1 month ago
There is no reason that a Facebook poke should be treated any differently than any other, less "modern" method of communication.
Linda
· 1 month ago
Let's get cyber ridiculous!!
rewinn
· 1 month ago
Yes, a "poke" is a communication in violation of the order.
She was ordered not to contact the person, and she broke the rule. She was really pretty stupid to do so.
Name
· 1 month ago
Since you have to be friends in order to be poked the individual Shannon poked accepted the interaction. If she no longer wanted to be contacted by Shannon she should have deleted her from her contacts.
Name
· 1 month ago
I think it's off limits because it's completely controllable by the recipient. ban the offender and they don't see you anymore, and you don't see them anymore. no need to call the police, let them take care of the real crimes.
Stephen Tiano
· 1 month ago
See, but that's misleading. It's not about Facebook. It's about violating the o/p.
Debbi
· 1 month ago
no contact means NO CONTACT and this woman knew exactly what she was doing when she sent that poke: violating a no contact order. She deserves the consequences!
Bruce Fenton
· 1 month ago
No question it is a form of contact --- many people with restraining orders have them for extremely good reasons - including past physical violence and threats and fear for thier lives - a poke could be very threatening for someone in such cases What we need to watch and beware of is the increased broading of blocked speech, not case specific but overall - under the label of hate speech for example - which now has activist groups on the extreme right and left organizing mass complaints againts people they politically disagree with -- this is something to avoid --
dancingbear6
· 1 month ago
That's retarded
Dustin
· 1 month ago
Don't you have to be a friend with someone on Facebook in order to poke them? It would seem bit odd that a person who has a protection order against someone would keep them as a friend, which would allow the contact to take place in the first place.
Even though the person in question should still not have communicated in the first place, I see it as a fallible argument for jailing since the petitioner knowingly kept a communication channel open.
I know that if I had an order such as this, against a person, they certainly wouldn't be my friend on Facebook.
Dustin
· 1 month ago
mabey im wrong - i dont use facebook enough
Lyla
· 1 month ago
I don't get it, so she 'poked' a woman on Facebook, when she clearly had a restraining order against her?!? Jail-time and $1,500. WOW!! That click had better been worth it.
wfpman
· 1 month ago
Can you imagine if she like tried to uh write on her wall! They'd have done some Hammurabi style stuff then! Don't even think about playing Mafia Wars!
Jerry Zambrano
· 1 month ago
It's certainly interesting news on the concept of how far to extend laws on the internet, and the definition of cyber-laws. The internet and the communities have grown so fast, that interstate and international tax laws, professional conduct laws etc. have not been able (not really) to catch up on the growing REAL virtual communities and life styles on the net
I don't know if there are any legal precedences for this type of online behavior, I do think that Shannon D. Jackson should've known better. The law is clear on "no communication" period. I letter or an email is an obvious communication. If the petitioner wants ZERO communication, then that includes any kind of interaction.
I just hope that this doesn't mean stricter and stricter laws on legitimate online communication.
Jerry
Michelle Potter
· 1 month ago
For anyone that is web-savvy or uses Facebook often, it doesn't make sense that a person would get a protection order against someone but not "de-friend" them. But just because someone HAS a Facebook account doesn't mean that person really understands the basic features or uses or even thinks about it on a regular basis. I know plenty of people who just do not do much socialization online at all. They might have a Facebook account because everyone else does, but they don't think of it as a regular means of communication like a telephone. Most of them don't know how to do anything on Facebook except update their status and respond to requests. If they were having a problem with someone who had become harassing or abusive, they wouldn't even think of trying to block the person on Facebook unless or until the harassment actually occurred *on Facebook.* In a case like that, getting on Facebook for the first time in weeks to find a poke from someone against whom you have a protection order might actually be the first time it occurs to you to wonder if it's possible to remove someone from your friends list.
BJ
· 1 month ago
How stupid is this......men and women should be able to work out their problems without involving the law....the law isnt always on the womans side anyway....
MT
· 1 month ago
S T U P I D waste of time, salaries & tax dollars.
Dawn Hall
· 1 month ago
It begs the question "why were they even facebook friends?" If I had an order of protection against someone, I certainly wouldn't be friends with them on Facebook. Unfriend them and tighten up your facebook settings. Learn to use technology then we wouldn't have people going to jail for ridiculous reasons.
Would they be going for the death penalty if she'd written on her wall? - absolutely ridiculous, a waste of time and money.
David Jones
· 1 month ago
This is absolutely insane. Most people know our justice system is about money. Criminals are a commodity. Politicians' and lawyers' careers and city coffers are grown off other human beings' misfortune, or lack of good judgment.
What is outcome? The city coffers are $1,500.00 richer and the DA has another niche in her/his belt, and the perpetrator now has a criminal record that may very well haunt her the rest of her life.
sedonahiker
· 1 month ago
I thought in order to poke someone on Facebook, you must be listed as their "friend". Otherwise all you may do is ask to be friends or send a private message. If these two women were in fact Facebook "friends", then the woman who had the order of protection should have not had the woman being arrested listed as a friend.
rogpeck
· 1 month ago
Playing devil's advocate here. Any one can have access to a person's passwords and to arrest someone for a "poke" is a bit extreme. In addition, the person that was poked should have had this individual blocked from access so as not to receive any communication. Think this is a bit extreme.
kiwikatnz
· 1 month ago
Yes..she probably thought, if I can't get you any other way..I'll try the FB connection. So, yes..she should be prosecuted.
G
· 1 month ago
All pokes should result in jail time.
Noora
· 1 month ago
Poking someone that strictly has a court order against you is a means of disturbance if not scary. The reason the person was restrained was for obvious reasons drawn out by the court, and as such it becomes problematic to use any tool, weather twitter, facebook and such to contact a person that requests not to be contacted.
Brings all the online retailer clearance/sales racks to one location... just click a stores logo in your section (guys or girls)... shopping for great deals just got easier!
Includes American Eagle, Abercrombie, Toms Shoes, Jedidiah USA, To write love on her arms, Hollister, Zumies, and many many more. Guys and Girls Sections.
mrbrice
· 1 month ago
point being is that she wasn't suppose to contact this person period.. she violated this condition.. she's obviously crazy if she's been put on a restraint order anyways..thats what i haft to say about the matter
Gerald Weber
· 1 month ago
The poke clearly broke the no contact order. It sounds ridiculous but it should be enforced.
Rachael Hallam
· 1 month ago
They shouldn't of even been facebook friends if there was an order in place
Amy
· 1 month ago
She should be in jail, and ANY kind of contact should be off limits if there's a restraining order involved.
Holly Jahangiri
· 1 month ago
Absolutely. This isn't about Facebook, or a Facebook poke, but about contact violating a court order. The headline is guaranteed to grab the attention of Facebook users, but really has little bearing on most of them.
Michael Pope
· 1 month ago
I wonder if they can connect the woman with the act. There's a real chance someone else used her Facebook account.
This is the real life equivalent of when I was younger and sent to my room, but when I was in there, stuck my toe over the carpet line. It's harmless per se, but suggests that there's not respect for the rules. It should be taken as any other violation.
Maryam Al Kamali
· 1 month ago
hmmm! interesting! was a poke worth all that!!
Jerry
· 1 month ago
No mamar!! (GTFO! in spanish)
Jonha Revesencio
· 1 month ago
Well, I suggest that the "Poke" feature on Facebook be changed to "Hug" or "Smile" instead. I'd be happy to give out some then.
Altinkum
· 1 month ago
Why did she poke in the first place?]
She knew the woman was off limits, probably thought face book would not be taken seriously, in which case people should not use the internet if they do not understand the implications of their actions on it.
Name
· 1 month ago
Don't see what's newsworthy of this, it's perfectly logical.
Richard Müller
· 1 month ago
a perfectly fair and logical outcome, whats so newsworthy about it?!?
Jay
· 1 month ago
It's pretty sad that our courts are being bogged down by ridiculous issues like this. If the "victim" didn't want to be poked, he/she could have easily blocked the other party so they could not have poked them... there are bigger issues in this world that need to be solved.
Mareethebee
· 1 month ago
your hot...
Mareethebee
· 1 month ago
ok u have something that stops me from saying what I want, but you do look good and the website looks gr8
whatdoyamena
· 1 month ago
Dont worry Obama will fix it
kim
· 1 month ago
Absolutely unalllowable. It is a method of communication that puts the other party in a position to have to react in some way. Although the poke can be ignored, the person who petitioned for the order of protection shouldn't have to consider the gray areas.
Jaden Dave
· 1 month ago
This is the funniest shit!
Doesn't poking the same sex make you a lesbian?
MichelleGillies
· 1 month ago
As stated it is definately a form of communication and therefore she broke the law. Poking can be annoying enough, but thinking that someone you have a court order against is lurking, watching you on the internet would be disturbing.
Hopalong Cassidy
· 1 month ago
"BLOCK" - "This here ain't real life, just words on a screen.." (HicksInTrucks) - Someone needs to get a real life..
laricito
· 1 month ago
To me this is stupid. Let's say I did a blanket poke and checked everyone that was on my facebook list for business reasons, then there is no harm no foul. And yes, what the heck is that other person thinking still being friends with someone on social networking website that they have a restraining order against, they both sound a touch slow. DELETE THEM FOOL.
Papillion
· 1 month ago
I agreed if she had a court order against communication and was poked it violated the court order. The feelings that arise from this incident would prob feel like she is being stalked. Perhaps the same reason for the court order, but she felt she could get away with it on fb. I am sure I would feel the same way is someone poked me on fb that I wanted no communicaiton with. It would bring up all the angry feelings and stress me.....Way to go for not allowing her this avenue of harassement...
jeelchristine
· 1 month ago
oh that sucks. why on earth are they even facebook friends.
Seems that there was already a violation going on if there was the option to poke. The purported victim in the case should have de-friended Shannon.
Heather Moore
· 1 month ago
If a court order prevents you from coming near or contacting a person, then yes, the person should face jail for breaking the terms of her prohibition. I'd say it serves her right for thinking she could find a way around the order.
AntigoneD
· 1 month ago
I do feel that poking someone on FB is a means of communication.
iquanyin
· 1 month ago
of course poking's off limits. a restraining order means no contact. period. why would poking be an exception?
militarystate
· 1 month ago
unbelievable. we have sex offenders not tracked, we have children beating each other to death and cities coffers stuffed with IOUs and the police have time to pick up someone for a "poke". As a society we are srewed.
Justin Parks
· 1 month ago
lol @Jorge Fiffe "It isn't the downside of social networking, it's the downside of stupid people who use social networking." Classic quote.
KC
· 1 month ago
I do agree b/c it's still the point she shall have no indirect or direct contact.....
Renante Rondina II
· 1 month ago
depends... was it a SuperPoke?... cuz i think SuperPokes would definitely off limits in this case... especially if it was something like, "Shannon D. Jackson is watching you outside your window" ...or something to that effect
Douglas Paul
· 1 month ago
NICE! It's always cool to see the law progressing along with society and technology. This is right on the money.
Chris Lockwood
· 1 month ago
Glad to hear that the crime rate has dropped so low that we can bother to prosecute someone for this.
Name
· 1 month ago
an order of protection is just that, and no contact means no contact whatsoever. a poke on FB is contact. so yes, ms. jackson violated the order of protection and should be dealt with accordingly. i mean, really, do people still believe that you can be completely anonymous online?
Bas Grasmayer
· 1 month ago
What a dumb ass.
Lesley Dewar
· 1 month ago
This is true. I had to report someone for spamming, who was not following me, after they retweeted one of my comments over and over again - in an inane attempt to use my name to support their product. After I warned them to stop, they continued to do it - hence the complaint to Twitter about their spam. How did I know, since I did not follow them? Every RT showed up as a "mention" of me. A mention I could do without!
shelly madison
· 1 month ago
Who even says it was her that did maybe someone else was on her computer??? I say prove it!
Name
· 1 month ago
No problem with this--people have to be acxcountable for their actions!
Name
· 1 month ago
hell yes she should be arrested if she broke the law no matter if it was using facebook or not. She communicated with the other party, end of story.
Name
· 1 month ago
also, if facebook is such a big cause for distress for the victim, i think it wouldnt kill them, to use the telephone instead, or perhaps, email. Yes facebook is a great way to reconnect and such but if its causing them so much distress, i think i would trade finding people i knew 20 years ago for peace of mind from the offender
The alleged poke broke the terms of the court order: “no telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner.”
Now that makes sense!
Name
· 1 month ago
Wow, what a great level of discussion among the comments! I am so used to the name-calling and ignorance I usually see as comments to news stories. Pleasantly surprised!
karenrice
· 1 month ago
She violated a court order. Nuff said.
Tom Clifton
· 1 month ago
If I had a nickel for every time this happened to me...
Name
· 1 month ago
This is retarded and for this person to be jailed for this is just a waste of time, resources, and money. I can't believe that people are so wrapped up over a social network as being the same manner or form of contact such as calling or email.
sparks74
· 1 month ago
You would think that the lady who asked for the order of protection would have removed the poker from her friends list...geesh
patriciakaehler
· 1 month ago
yes... it's offlimits... give her 3 days in Jail... ~Patricia
bigmag
· 1 month ago
a jail term just for a contact? this is so unjust!!!! I think we can start filing an order of protection against the police and the ridiculous illegal system.
mendez
· 1 month ago
hell yes its a violation.. a restraining order means we dont wanna hear from you, we dont want you lurking, and we certainly do not wanna log onto facebook just to find your stupid little picture appear at the left of the screen saying "you've been pokedd!" ...
Name
· 1 month ago
It's just a facebook poke, getting jail time for that is obsurd and a complete waste of time and money which could be used for far more important things like the finacial crisis we're in.
Carley
· 1 month ago
Remember when people just poked each other in "real" life....
Kimberly
· 1 month ago
well I think you can only "poke" a "friend".. so its the "suppossed" victims fault for having the accussed still listed as a friend on her facebook... What I think... a waste of tax payers money.. between the actual arrest, paperwork, court time etc... those cops could have been out saving a life or helping firemen get a cat out of a tree instead of dealing with this! Kimberly Long Island NY
dalemcmullenshadew
· 1 month ago
Absolutely not - the order of protection is in place for a reason. Communication, in any form is a violation of that protection. I'm glad to see that our system is working!
abutterflyloves
· 1 month ago
I have two people (ex friends) that continue to stalk me via social networks. Luckily, I am not that hick to file a restraining order. On Facebook, and on Twitter, you can block that person before they send a request. It's a shame that it comes to that. But some of the retarded soccer moms out there have no life but to stalk friends from High School.
Custom Facebook Application
· 1 month ago
The “poker” was or should have been aware. The “pokee” should have figured out how to block someone.
Being “a little-known option in the privacy settings” isn’t exactly accurate, if you’re looking for it you can find it.
If someone is going to go through the trouble to file a restraining order she should have the sense to make her profile private (in my opnion everyone should do this anyway) and at the very least de-friend this person.
Now, just under a year in jail for breaking the order through poking, a little harsh. Some kind of punishment, for being ridiculous at the very least, should be implemented. Now, other person, please de-friend this individual.
mizzq
· 1 month ago
this shit is krzi, they be tryna lock people up for any thing and females are so immature why would she even get mad behind a fushin poke over the internet anyway, it ant like she physically put her hands on the ladi man its 09 people need to seriously grow the hell up
BJQ
· 1 month ago
no contact means: NO Contact-
GFDDE
· 1 month ago
This is ridiculous. Your law needs to be fixed.
Lorelei Mission
· 1 month ago
Good lord, the harrassment had already gotten so bad that the law had to get involved, why the hell did she then have to do a poke too? Obviously something wrong with her
Anna
· 1 month ago
god it's nonsense american laws are out of common sense sometimes
Nillabeast
· 1 month ago
Good luck proving it was her. People get phished all the time- not only will she walk, she could potentially sue for emotional damages.
ivynichole
· 2 weeks ago
Good. I hope she gets all 29 days and max fine just for being DUMB! She deserves whatever is coming to her. I just cant believe that someone could be so ignorant! Court order is court order! what an IDIOT! lol.
Jerry
· 1 week ago
It's not unbelievable. If she's not meant to be bothering her victim she shouldn't be. Hers was a deliberate attempt at harassment and she should face the consequences. The court order wouldn't be in place if she hadn't don something to this person previously anyway.
Jedward
· 1 week ago
I know a woman who has a "no contact" order against her estranged husband. He "sent" her some virtual "gift" via a Facebook app, as well as "Liking" a post she made.
As I understand it, No-contact orders also include "electronic transmission" which means email, texting....and even Facebook.
The county attorney is examining the options, as far as I know.
All Comments
bigger issues out there rather than Poking! Sh*t.
Name, I don't think there's necessarily a conflict between free speech and the restraining order in your example, since the person under the order is allowed to say anything they want, they are only limited in who they say it to. If they are NOT allowed to tweet "@johndoe is a real jerk," but ARE allowed to tweet "johndoe is a real jerk," then the only difference is whether they sent the message TO John Doe. Kind of like the difference between standing in the street shouting, "John Doe is a real jerk!" and actually walking up to John Doe and saying it to his face. It's not the speech being restricted, just the contact.
I do get your point about whether retweeting should be considered contact, since the PURPOSE of retweeting is to forward John Doe's tweets on to OTHER people, not to contact John Doe. (Although, as I said before, you could just take out the @ and sidestep the whole issue.) But if you were a smarter tweeter than I, you'd know that retweets would go back to John Doe's timeline, and it would be easy to continue harassing him by retweeting everything he says. Just a way of saying that no matter what John Doe does, even get a restraining order, he can never get the harasser out of his life. Which is really just the sort of thing that a restraining order is supposed to at least TRY to prevent.
Besides, if she was so emotioally vulnerable, why were they FB friends?
the individual in question is a douche it seems, too
the sentence meted out is brutal. how the hell does a poker knows if an indivdual is under the order of protection? should'n't such dangerous button be remove and what if someone clicked by mistake? the jailed woman seems more like a victim to me! i don't get it. justice justice!!! cry
So this means that Jackson a) was doing something along the lines of stalking, harassing, or abusing this other woman, enough to make her seek an order of protection; b) was court-ordered to have NO further contact with the other woman and knew good and well that a violation of that would land her in jail; and c) chose to send a Facebook poke to a woman she KNEW she wasn't even supposed to wave to on the street. She probably figured that she'd get away with it, that if the other woman complained no one would take a Facebook poke seriously. But no contact means no contact, and excepting Facebook pokes would just give Jackson a legitimate avenue by which to continue to harass her victim.
Unless another poll was made?
It's just plain silly.
who's to say the poke isn't old and the woman simply left it there un-answered and only bought it up till now?
also, old news.
As much as I enjoy the Internet I think the law should be protecting people against certain actions, which would be illegal in the real world (like harassment, libel, etc.) However, net neutrality needs to remain in place without big business turning the Internet into a profit machine where only big business profits.
this woman that went agasint the peace bond by "Poking" the other woman??
anyone who uses facebook knows you cannot send a poke if you dont have the person as a friend on facebook....
sorry but if that was me common sense would be to take the person you have the peace bond on off your facbook cell phone eamil etc.. if you dont your just asking for "drama"....this is just my personal thought no disrespect to anyone else opinion :D
Something about this story doesn't quite sound right
Anyone who has been the victim of domestic violence or other forms of harrassment would know that as innocent as an FB poke may seem, it was intended to harrass the victim.
This is a case in which people in a position of power and authority show how uneducated they are when it comes to how social media works. The bond needs to be completely waived and they need to apologize to Shannon Jackson. Seriously, I have seen numerous situations where pokes have occurred without the user even knowing that they poked someone. This feature should be removed from Facebook as it is completely pointless and hopefully this story moves them to action.
In my opinion, Shannon D. Jackson is innocent and should not have to face any penalties as a result. People should not be arrested for silly nonsense like this and it's sad to see that these types of actions are able to be carried out by uneducated law officials.
In related thought, I have seen people literally "freak out" about information they see in their news feed because they think that all of their friends can see that information and they are confusing it with their profile feed. They do not understand that it is simply a stream of posts from their friends, and that the home screen is not visible to anyone else, only their profile page is.
I would definitely push hard on this issue if I were Shannon Jackson because of the inconvenience she has had to face as a result of something so ridiculous!
How would she even plan on defending herself? If someone has a restraining order against you, what are you doing aggitating them with something as petty as a poke? On top of illegal - it's passive agressive!
On a side note: have you read the comments on the original post? Seems like a few of the commentors know the parties involved. Kind of entertaining (in a trainwreck sort of way!)
She was ordered not to contact the person, and she broke the rule. She was really pretty stupid to do so.
What we need to watch and beware of is the increased broading of blocked speech, not case specific but overall - under the label of hate speech for example - which now has activist groups on the extreme right and left organizing mass complaints againts people they politically disagree with -- this is something to avoid --
Even though the person in question should still not have communicated in the first place, I see it as a fallible argument for jailing since the petitioner knowingly kept a communication channel open.
I know that if I had an order such as this, against a person, they certainly wouldn't be my friend on Facebook.
The internet and the communities have grown so fast, that interstate and international tax laws, professional conduct laws etc. have not been able (not really) to catch up on the growing REAL virtual communities and life styles on the net
I don't know if there are any legal precedences for this type of online behavior, I do think that Shannon D. Jackson should've known better. The law is clear on "no communication" period. I letter or an email is an obvious communication. If the petitioner wants ZERO communication, then that includes any kind of interaction.
I just hope that this doesn't mean stricter and stricter laws on legitimate online communication.
Jerry
Would they be going for the death penalty if she'd written on her wall? - absolutely ridiculous, a waste of time and money.
What is outcome? The city coffers are $1,500.00 richer and the DA has another niche in her/his belt, and the perpetrator now has a criminal record that may very well haunt her the rest of her life.
Brings all the online retailer clearance/sales racks to one location... just click a stores logo in your section (guys or girls)... shopping for great deals just got easier!
Includes American Eagle, Abercrombie, Toms Shoes, Jedidiah USA, To write love on her arms, Hollister, Zumies, and many many more. Guys and Girls Sections.
was a poke worth all that!!
She knew the woman was off limits, probably thought face book would not be taken seriously, in which case people should not use the internet if they do not understand the implications of their actions on it.
Doesn't poking the same sex make you a lesbian?
http://www.ShawnDrewry.com
http://www.seodoom.info/2009/09/how-to-avoid-mi...
Now that makes sense!
give her 3 days in Jail...
~Patricia
Being “a little-known option in the privacy settings” isn’t exactly accurate, if you’re looking for it you can find it.
If someone is going to go through the trouble to file a restraining order she should have the sense to make her profile private (in my opnion everyone should do this anyway) and at the very least de-friend this person.
Now, just under a year in jail for breaking the order through poking, a little harsh. Some kind of punishment, for being ridiculous at the very least, should be implemented. Now, other person, please de-friend this individual.
american laws are out of common sense sometimes
As I understand it, No-contact orders also include "electronic transmission" which means email, texting....and even Facebook.
The county attorney is examining the options, as far as I know.