Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Dayana — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:04:42 -0000

Why didn't I think of it? Would've made a lot money with all those strangers poking me.

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Stalkee — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:39:57 -0000

As a person who has an RO on someone, you might not necessarily want to block the stalker depending on your case. Think of it as having a super secure door on your house that locks tight, but you have no way to see out through a peephole or windows when someone knocks on your door. You don't know if it's the mail carrier, or a creep. I would want to know if the restrained person is attempting to contact me somehow that way I can report it to the police.

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

MrMe — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:29:07 -0000

What a stupid fucking country we live in.

Every time I look now someone is going to jail for the dumbest god damn crap. They just arrested those people from Survivor for killing and eating rats, RATS, when the fuck has it ever.. EVER been wrong to kill god damn rats. Is this India now? Our we supposed to let rats roam the streets freely out of respect, what about hunters, put them in jail for murder.
Stupid fucking bullshit, any judge who even considers this shit should be skinned alive.

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Jedward — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:07:39 -0000

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.

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Jerry — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:34:35 -0000

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.

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

ivynichole — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:22:37 -0000

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.

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

That Girl — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:46:39 -0000

That is terrifyingly true. What has political correctness reduced us to?

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

nillabeast — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:44:13 -0000

Excuse the typos, its 3am

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Nillabeast — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:43:11 -0000

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?

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Nillabeast — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:39:30 -0000

Good luck proving it was her. People get phished all the time- not only will she walk, she could potentially sue for emotional damages.

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Anna — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:00:23 -0000

god it's nonsense
american laws are out of common sense sometimes

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

lorismith — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:34:21 -0000

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.

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Lorelei Mission — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:44:04 -0000

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

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

GFDDE — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:51:28 -0000

This is ridiculous. Your law needs to be fixed.

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Name — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:20:35 -0000

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!

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

RevMike — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:33:34 -0000

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 )

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

BJQ — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:30:04 -0000

no contact means: NO Contact-

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

mizzq — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:44:56 -0000

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

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Custom Facebook Application — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:40:22 -0000

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.

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Kimberly Salvinski Garcia — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:19:49 -0000

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.

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

dalemcmullenshadew — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:33:28 -0000

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!

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Kimberly — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:00:17 -0000

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

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Carley — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:39:07 -0000

Remember when people just poked each other in "real" life....

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Name — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:39:27 -0000

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.

Re: Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Michelle Potter — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:37:58 -0000

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.