<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_12_2237246</id>
	<title>Facebook User Arrested For a Poke</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255345860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>nk497 writes <i>"A woman in Tennessee has been <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/tennessee-woman-arrested-facebook-poke/story?id=8807685">arrested for poking someone over Facebook</a>. 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."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>nk497 writes " 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 could n't hold back from clicking the 'poke ' button .
She now faces a sentence of up to a year in prison .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nk497 writes "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.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29731723</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1255448220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can poke non-friends, but that's irrelevant. The point is this: <b>If Bob has been ordered by the court not to contact Sue, and he contacts Sue, he is at fault.</b> Period. It is not up to Sue to prevent Bob from contacting him (she already did that by getting the fucking restraining order in the first place). <b>Bob is responsible for his own actions.</b> </p><p>This is an issue of personal responsibility. Yes, there are steps Sue can take to avoid Bob. Yes, some of those steps may be smart things to do. But, even if Sue does not take those steps, it is Bob's fault, and <i>only</i> Bob's fault, if Bob decides to violate the restraining order and contact Sue.</p><p>Why is this so difficult for so many people to understand?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can poke non-friends , but that 's irrelevant .
The point is this : If Bob has been ordered by the court not to contact Sue , and he contacts Sue , he is at fault .
Period. It is not up to Sue to prevent Bob from contacting him ( she already did that by getting the fucking restraining order in the first place ) .
Bob is responsible for his own actions .
This is an issue of personal responsibility .
Yes , there are steps Sue can take to avoid Bob .
Yes , some of those steps may be smart things to do .
But , even if Sue does not take those steps , it is Bob 's fault , and only Bob 's fault , if Bob decides to violate the restraining order and contact Sue.Why is this so difficult for so many people to understand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can poke non-friends, but that's irrelevant.
The point is this: If Bob has been ordered by the court not to contact Sue, and he contacts Sue, he is at fault.
Period. It is not up to Sue to prevent Bob from contacting him (she already did that by getting the fucking restraining order in the first place).
Bob is responsible for his own actions.
This is an issue of personal responsibility.
Yes, there are steps Sue can take to avoid Bob.
Yes, some of those steps may be smart things to do.
But, even if Sue does not take those steps, it is Bob's fault, and only Bob's fault, if Bob decides to violate the restraining order and contact Sue.Why is this so difficult for so many people to understand?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29734503</id>
	<title>Makes me say, "Oh, my lord."</title>
	<author>Tpl2000</author>
	<datestamp>1255460460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>U can't touch this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>U ca n't touch this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>U can't touch this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29731187</id>
	<title>How this relates to Second Life's Emerald client</title>
	<author>RockAndRoll Michigan</author>
	<datestamp>1255445340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This illustrates why the creators of the Emerald viewer for Second Life need to make some changes regarding their included radar feature. Specifically with the teleport to..... feature.

This thing has a scanner range of 4096 meters. Since a sim is 256x256 meters, you can scan for anybody many sims away. 16 sims away in fact. 16 squared, is 256. You can scan for all avatars in a grid of 256 sims.

What's more, any avatar the radar actually finds, can show up in a window with an option to teleport to their location. You don't have to get their permission to do so. You don't even have to know who they are. Just ask to go there and poof, you are there.

Even if somebody has a property protected by a security orb with an immediate eject or kill function, the person still arrives there. Fabulous tool for harassment and griefing.

And people posting in the Second Life forums think preemptively banning "all" avatars is a bad thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This illustrates why the creators of the Emerald viewer for Second Life need to make some changes regarding their included radar feature .
Specifically with the teleport to..... feature . This thing has a scanner range of 4096 meters .
Since a sim is 256x256 meters , you can scan for anybody many sims away .
16 sims away in fact .
16 squared , is 256 .
You can scan for all avatars in a grid of 256 sims .
What 's more , any avatar the radar actually finds , can show up in a window with an option to teleport to their location .
You do n't have to get their permission to do so .
You do n't even have to know who they are .
Just ask to go there and poof , you are there .
Even if somebody has a property protected by a security orb with an immediate eject or kill function , the person still arrives there .
Fabulous tool for harassment and griefing .
And people posting in the Second Life forums think preemptively banning " all " avatars is a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This illustrates why the creators of the Emerald viewer for Second Life need to make some changes regarding their included radar feature.
Specifically with the teleport to..... feature.

This thing has a scanner range of 4096 meters.
Since a sim is 256x256 meters, you can scan for anybody many sims away.
16 sims away in fact.
16 squared, is 256.
You can scan for all avatars in a grid of 256 sims.
What's more, any avatar the radar actually finds, can show up in a window with an option to teleport to their location.
You don't have to get their permission to do so.
You don't even have to know who they are.
Just ask to go there and poof, you are there.
Even if somebody has a property protected by a security orb with an immediate eject or kill function, the person still arrives there.
Fabulous tool for harassment and griefing.
And people posting in the Second Life forums think preemptively banning "all" avatars is a bad thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728365</id>
	<title>Poke as a form of communication?</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1255367160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you can really say poke is a helpful form of communication!</p><p>pokepokepokepoke poke pokepoookepokepoke pokepoookepoookepoke pokepoookepokepoookepokepoooke   pokepoke   pokepoooke poookepoooke   poooke pokepoookepoke pokepoooke pokepoookepoookepoke pokepoookepoookepoke poke poookepokepoke   pokepoke poookepoke pokepokepoke pokepoke poookepokepoke poke   pokepokepoookepoke pokepoooke poookepokepoookepoke poke poookepokepokepoke poookepoookepoooke poookepoookepoooke poookepokepoooke   poookepokepoke pokepoooke poooke pokepoooke   poookepokepoookepoke poke poookepoke poooke poke pokepoookepoke pokepoookepokepoookepokepoooke</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you can really say poke is a helpful form of communication ! pokepokepokepoke poke pokepoookepokepoke pokepoookepoookepoke pokepoookepokepoookepokepoooke pokepoke pokepoooke poookepoooke poooke pokepoookepoke pokepoooke pokepoookepoookepoke pokepoookepoookepoke poke poookepokepoke pokepoke poookepoke pokepokepoke pokepoke poookepokepoke poke pokepokepoookepoke pokepoooke poookepokepoookepoke poke poookepokepokepoke poookepoookepoooke poookepoookepoooke poookepokepoooke poookepokepoke pokepoooke poooke pokepoooke poookepokepoookepoke poke poookepoke poooke poke pokepoookepoke pokepoookepokepoookepokepoooke</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you can really say poke is a helpful form of communication!pokepokepokepoke poke pokepoookepokepoke pokepoookepoookepoke pokepoookepokepoookepokepoooke   pokepoke   pokepoooke poookepoooke   poooke pokepoookepoke pokepoooke pokepoookepoookepoke pokepoookepoookepoke poke poookepokepoke   pokepoke poookepoke pokepokepoke pokepoke poookepokepoke poke   pokepokepoookepoke pokepoooke poookepokepoookepoke poke poookepokepokepoke poookepoookepoooke poookepoookepoooke poookepokepoooke   poookepokepoke pokepoooke poooke pokepoooke   poookepokepoookepoke poke poookepoke poooke poke pokepoookepoke pokepoookepokepoookepokepoooke</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728379</id>
	<title>Re:Duh, that's what a restraining order is</title>
	<author>db10</author>
	<datestamp>1255367220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>* poke *</htmltext>
<tokenext>* poke *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* poke *</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726995</id>
	<title>Those americans are nuts</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1255355580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is Asterix when you need him?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is Asterix when you need him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is Asterix when you need him?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29737907</id>
	<title>Correction...</title>
	<author>Duggeek</author>
	<datestamp>1255431240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Facebook User Arrested for Violating Court Order Using a &ldquo;Poke&rdquo;</i> </p><p>Fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook User Arrested for Violating Court Order Using a    Poke    Fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Facebook User Arrested for Violating Court Order Using a “Poke” Fixed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728669</id>
	<title>I don't agree with the consensus!</title>
	<author>hellop2</author>
	<datestamp>1255370400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are talking about putting a person in jail, depriving them of their liberty, because of the click of a button.  I do not feel that this in the spirit of the law.  While it is true, that "poking" someone requires an active decision to electronically reach out and touch the other person I do not feel that this "crime" is worth of putting someone in jail.  <br> <br>

Now, my postulate assumes that the "victim" could have just un-friended the person to prevent being poked by that person.<br> <br>

The perpetrator logs onto facebook, see's her adversary, and clicks a button.  This is similar to the perpetrator seeing her adversary at the grocery store and looking at them, or even winking or waving at them.  A "poke" is not a well formed sentence.  It is different than what I think the law suggests as a form of communication.  What did she communicate exactly?<br> <br>

Restraining orders happen all the time.  They do not necessarily imply any actual crime has been committed, and do not require trial by jury.  People can also be harassed by having unjust restraining orders applied against them. <br> <br>

You can't really stop someone from looking at you, or waving, or raising their eyebrows, etc... in public.  You can look away.  Just like the victim could un-friend them. <br> <br>

I do not agree with depriving someone of their liberty because of one "poke".</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are talking about putting a person in jail , depriving them of their liberty , because of the click of a button .
I do not feel that this in the spirit of the law .
While it is true , that " poking " someone requires an active decision to electronically reach out and touch the other person I do not feel that this " crime " is worth of putting someone in jail .
Now , my postulate assumes that the " victim " could have just un-friended the person to prevent being poked by that person .
The perpetrator logs onto facebook , see 's her adversary , and clicks a button .
This is similar to the perpetrator seeing her adversary at the grocery store and looking at them , or even winking or waving at them .
A " poke " is not a well formed sentence .
It is different than what I think the law suggests as a form of communication .
What did she communicate exactly ?
Restraining orders happen all the time .
They do not necessarily imply any actual crime has been committed , and do not require trial by jury .
People can also be harassed by having unjust restraining orders applied against them .
You ca n't really stop someone from looking at you , or waving , or raising their eyebrows , etc... in public .
You can look away .
Just like the victim could un-friend them .
I do not agree with depriving someone of their liberty because of one " poke " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are talking about putting a person in jail, depriving them of their liberty, because of the click of a button.
I do not feel that this in the spirit of the law.
While it is true, that "poking" someone requires an active decision to electronically reach out and touch the other person I do not feel that this "crime" is worth of putting someone in jail.
Now, my postulate assumes that the "victim" could have just un-friended the person to prevent being poked by that person.
The perpetrator logs onto facebook, see's her adversary, and clicks a button.
This is similar to the perpetrator seeing her adversary at the grocery store and looking at them, or even winking or waving at them.
A "poke" is not a well formed sentence.
It is different than what I think the law suggests as a form of communication.
What did she communicate exactly?
Restraining orders happen all the time.
They do not necessarily imply any actual crime has been committed, and do not require trial by jury.
People can also be harassed by having unjust restraining orders applied against them.
You can't really stop someone from looking at you, or waving, or raising their eyebrows, etc... in public.
You can look away.
Just like the victim could un-friend them.
I do not agree with depriving someone of their liberty because of one "poke".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727717</id>
	<title>Free Publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255361100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever be the case, this is terrific publicity for Facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever be the case , this is terrific publicity for Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever be the case, this is terrific publicity for Facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726373</id>
	<title>Problem with this scenario</title>
	<author>hrmmmguy99</author>
	<datestamp>1255351920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with this scenario is in order to "poke" someone on facebook, you have to be on their friends list. If this person was that concerned about having any contact with their stalker, why was the stalker on their friends list?

Don't get me wrong -- I don't think the lady should have "poked" this person or otherwise had any contact with the person. But my question is still valid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this scenario is in order to " poke " someone on facebook , you have to be on their friends list .
If this person was that concerned about having any contact with their stalker , why was the stalker on their friends list ?
Do n't get me wrong -- I do n't think the lady should have " poked " this person or otherwise had any contact with the person .
But my question is still valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this scenario is in order to "poke" someone on facebook, you have to be on their friends list.
If this person was that concerned about having any contact with their stalker, why was the stalker on their friends list?
Don't get me wrong -- I don't think the lady should have "poked" this person or otherwise had any contact with the person.
But my question is still valid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725923</id>
	<title>No communication is no communication.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255349520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The system works!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The system works !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system works!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29731677</id>
	<title>Re:The last of the true blue /.ers?</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1255448100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm on FB, but I've never done any poking, or been poked.  I don't see the point.  If I want to say "hi" to someone, I just say "hi".  And I certainly wouldn't say "hi", poke, or be "friends" with someone who had a restraining order against me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm on FB , but I 've never done any poking , or been poked .
I do n't see the point .
If I want to say " hi " to someone , I just say " hi " .
And I certainly would n't say " hi " , poke , or be " friends " with someone who had a restraining order against me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm on FB, but I've never done any poking, or been poked.
I don't see the point.
If I want to say "hi" to someone, I just say "hi".
And I certainly wouldn't say "hi", poke, or be "friends" with someone who had a restraining order against me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727767</id>
	<title>why I'm not on facebook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255361520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had one asshole on facebook harassing me because I wouldn't let her in my dungeons and dragons group or some other role playing group. Because I thought she was an asshole. Yeah that's right, she.  I would game with this asshole no matter what was between her legs. But because this asshole was female, she tried the old: "Its sexist guys like you that cause girls not to game". Sorry asshole, its assholes like you who cause rational people not to want to game.  I work with a whole bunch of assholes. Sometimes I might even go out to drink with a few coworkers who aren't assholes and will even tolerated things when the asshole shows up. But I'm not going to spend my spare time hanging out with an asshole I don't want to drink with. In fact this asshole might actually be reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p><p>And if you are Ms Asshole, that's why nobody wants to game with you.  We don't don't care what your gender is, or how many book credits you claim to have.  I have book credits too but I don't need to flaunt my gaming resume, so you're just another asshole and another reason not to game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had one asshole on facebook harassing me because I would n't let her in my dungeons and dragons group or some other role playing group .
Because I thought she was an asshole .
Yeah that 's right , she .
I would game with this asshole no matter what was between her legs .
But because this asshole was female , she tried the old : " Its sexist guys like you that cause girls not to game " .
Sorry asshole , its assholes like you who cause rational people not to want to game .
I work with a whole bunch of assholes .
Sometimes I might even go out to drink with a few coworkers who are n't assholes and will even tolerated things when the asshole shows up .
But I 'm not going to spend my spare time hanging out with an asshole I do n't want to drink with .
In fact this asshole might actually be reading /.And if you are Ms Asshole , that 's why nobody wants to game with you .
We do n't do n't care what your gender is , or how many book credits you claim to have .
I have book credits too but I do n't need to flaunt my gaming resume , so you 're just another asshole and another reason not to game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had one asshole on facebook harassing me because I wouldn't let her in my dungeons and dragons group or some other role playing group.
Because I thought she was an asshole.
Yeah that's right, she.
I would game with this asshole no matter what was between her legs.
But because this asshole was female, she tried the old: "Its sexist guys like you that cause girls not to game".
Sorry asshole, its assholes like you who cause rational people not to want to game.
I work with a whole bunch of assholes.
Sometimes I might even go out to drink with a few coworkers who aren't assholes and will even tolerated things when the asshole shows up.
But I'm not going to spend my spare time hanging out with an asshole I don't want to drink with.
In fact this asshole might actually be reading /.And if you are Ms Asshole, that's why nobody wants to game with you.
We don't don't care what your gender is, or how many book credits you claim to have.
I have book credits too but I don't need to flaunt my gaming resume, so you're just another asshole and another reason not to game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29730681</id>
	<title>Ah...facebook again...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1255441980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is it that the person was a friend that had the ability to poke this person, if this person had a restraining order,<br>she could have just eliminated her from her friends list, I would have ruled a little lighter on this one, I know she was told no contact...<br>but technically she did not directly contact the person, she merely placed a post on a forum which the other person views regularly, there was no real direct communication....I can post on someone's wall, does not mean that person will read it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is it that the person was a friend that had the ability to poke this person , if this person had a restraining order,she could have just eliminated her from her friends list , I would have ruled a little lighter on this one , I know she was told no contact...but technically she did not directly contact the person , she merely placed a post on a forum which the other person views regularly , there was no real direct communication....I can post on someone 's wall , does not mean that person will read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is it that the person was a friend that had the ability to poke this person, if this person had a restraining order,she could have just eliminated her from her friends list, I would have ruled a little lighter on this one, I know she was told no contact...but technically she did not directly contact the person, she merely placed a post on a forum which the other person views regularly, there was no real direct communication....I can post on someone's wall, does not mean that person will read it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727389</id>
	<title>The last of the true blue /.ers?</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1255358760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to be the only person here who doesn't get this "poking" business.  In more ways than one, it would seem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to be the only person here who does n't get this " poking " business .
In more ways than one , it would seem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to be the only person here who doesn't get this "poking" business.
In more ways than one, it would seem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729787</id>
	<title>On another note - she may have planned it</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1255430940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>exact same thing happened to one of my friends who was fighting a corrupt foundation who uses a lot of dirty tricks, in the courts. one of those is a similar trick ; first the foundation's lawyer acquired a restraining order from court. then, one of the foundation members has sent an extremely inflammatory email cced to hundreds of people working in the relevant area, including my friend, AND the lawyer. naturally, my friend responded to inflammatory and defamating remarks by using 'reply all' feature, so that everyone in the mailing list would see the other side of the story. then the smartypants lawyer went to the court, showing the email he received through 'reply all'. and the court, being ignorant in that regard took up the case and now prosecuting my friend.</p><p>it is quite possible that this woman/man (whatever it was) purposefully arranged such a setup to get back at the defendant, just like what this smartypants fucktard did here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>exact same thing happened to one of my friends who was fighting a corrupt foundation who uses a lot of dirty tricks , in the courts .
one of those is a similar trick ; first the foundation 's lawyer acquired a restraining order from court .
then , one of the foundation members has sent an extremely inflammatory email cced to hundreds of people working in the relevant area , including my friend , AND the lawyer .
naturally , my friend responded to inflammatory and defamating remarks by using 'reply all ' feature , so that everyone in the mailing list would see the other side of the story .
then the smartypants lawyer went to the court , showing the email he received through 'reply all' .
and the court , being ignorant in that regard took up the case and now prosecuting my friend.it is quite possible that this woman/man ( whatever it was ) purposefully arranged such a setup to get back at the defendant , just like what this smartypants fucktard did here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exact same thing happened to one of my friends who was fighting a corrupt foundation who uses a lot of dirty tricks, in the courts.
one of those is a similar trick ; first the foundation's lawyer acquired a restraining order from court.
then, one of the foundation members has sent an extremely inflammatory email cced to hundreds of people working in the relevant area, including my friend, AND the lawyer.
naturally, my friend responded to inflammatory and defamating remarks by using 'reply all' feature, so that everyone in the mailing list would see the other side of the story.
then the smartypants lawyer went to the court, showing the email he received through 'reply all'.
and the court, being ignorant in that regard took up the case and now prosecuting my friend.it is quite possible that this woman/man (whatever it was) purposefully arranged such a setup to get back at the defendant, just like what this smartypants fucktard did here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726419</id>
	<title>The obvious question?</title>
	<author>atmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1255352100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't you BLOCK a person on facebook before getting a restraining order out on them?

However, I don't disagree with this decision at all, and strongly agree with the previous comment:<p><div class="quote"><p>Yep, not really news.  Would "Woman with a Restraining Order Against Her Arrested for Calling and Hanging Up" make the front page?  Even "Woman with a Restraining Order Against Her Arrested for Texting" wouldn't raise any eyebrows.</p><p>It's not newsworthy that a restraining order was violated. It's newsworthy that law enforcement are looking at the violation regardless of the communication channel. It's one more step towards realizing we don't need to create new laws with "e-this, or cyber-that" to have them apply to Internet traffic.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't you BLOCK a person on facebook before getting a restraining order out on them ?
However , I do n't disagree with this decision at all , and strongly agree with the previous comment : Yep , not really news .
Would " Woman with a Restraining Order Against Her Arrested for Calling and Hanging Up " make the front page ?
Even " Woman with a Restraining Order Against Her Arrested for Texting " would n't raise any eyebrows.It 's not newsworthy that a restraining order was violated .
It 's newsworthy that law enforcement are looking at the violation regardless of the communication channel .
It 's one more step towards realizing we do n't need to create new laws with " e-this , or cyber-that " to have them apply to Internet traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't you BLOCK a person on facebook before getting a restraining order out on them?
However, I don't disagree with this decision at all, and strongly agree with the previous comment:Yep, not really news.
Would "Woman with a Restraining Order Against Her Arrested for Calling and Hanging Up" make the front page?
Even "Woman with a Restraining Order Against Her Arrested for Texting" wouldn't raise any eyebrows.It's not newsworthy that a restraining order was violated.
It's newsworthy that law enforcement are looking at the violation regardless of the communication channel.
It's one more step towards realizing we don't need to create new laws with "e-this, or cyber-that" to have them apply to Internet traffic.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727571</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1255360080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I had a restraining order against someone who seriously bothered me that much, I'd take them off my damn friend list and make my profile private.</p><p>You can't poke someone unless you are friends or their profile is wide open.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had a restraining order against someone who seriously bothered me that much , I 'd take them off my damn friend list and make my profile private.You ca n't poke someone unless you are friends or their profile is wide open.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had a restraining order against someone who seriously bothered me that much, I'd take them off my damn friend list and make my profile private.You can't poke someone unless you are friends or their profile is wide open.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729553</id>
	<title>what???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255426980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only in the USA would a person be arrested for clicking on the webpage of another person too many times.... freakin idiotic legal system</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only in the USA would a person be arrested for clicking on the webpage of another person too many times.... freakin idiotic legal system</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only in the USA would a person be arrested for clicking on the webpage of another person too many times.... freakin idiotic legal system</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29735511</id>
	<title>This makes no sense</title>
	<author>pev</author>
	<datestamp>1255465320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, on facebook, to be able to poke someone you have to be in their friends list. If the other party had a restraining order out against them, why had they accepted them into their friends to enable them to send a poke in the first place? Er, duh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , on facebook , to be able to poke someone you have to be in their friends list .
If the other party had a restraining order out against them , why had they accepted them into their friends to enable them to send a poke in the first place ?
Er , duh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, on facebook, to be able to poke someone you have to be in their friends list.
If the other party had a restraining order out against them, why had they accepted them into their friends to enable them to send a poke in the first place?
Er, duh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29730815</id>
	<title>what about the fact...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255443000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that they had to have been Facebook friends to poke one another in the first place? Seems odd to me that you'd have a restraining order against someone and yet keep them as your friend on Facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that they had to have been Facebook friends to poke one another in the first place ?
Seems odd to me that you 'd have a restraining order against someone and yet keep them as your friend on Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that they had to have been Facebook friends to poke one another in the first place?
Seems odd to me that you'd have a restraining order against someone and yet keep them as your friend on Facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727431</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255359120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This also demonstrates that people don't fully view internet communication as non-internet communication. The fact that this woman, and others (here for example) didn't immediately recognize this form of communication as something restricted by the order demonstrates that internet communication simple isn't necessarily viewed in the same class as non-internet communication. This fact, apart from needing to change, is immensely interesting. The more remote something is, the less human it is and the easier it is to perform. The difference between shooting someone and stabbing someone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This also demonstrates that people do n't fully view internet communication as non-internet communication .
The fact that this woman , and others ( here for example ) did n't immediately recognize this form of communication as something restricted by the order demonstrates that internet communication simple is n't necessarily viewed in the same class as non-internet communication .
This fact , apart from needing to change , is immensely interesting .
The more remote something is , the less human it is and the easier it is to perform .
The difference between shooting someone and stabbing someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This also demonstrates that people don't fully view internet communication as non-internet communication.
The fact that this woman, and others (here for example) didn't immediately recognize this form of communication as something restricted by the order demonstrates that internet communication simple isn't necessarily viewed in the same class as non-internet communication.
This fact, apart from needing to change, is immensely interesting.
The more remote something is, the less human it is and the easier it is to perform.
The difference between shooting someone and stabbing someone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726381</id>
	<title>Something doesn't make sense</title>
	<author>Shimmer</author>
	<datestamp>1255351980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook only allows you to poke your friends, right? With a restraining order in place, how did these two have such a relationship in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook only allows you to poke your friends , right ?
With a restraining order in place , how did these two have such a relationship in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook only allows you to poke your friends, right?
With a restraining order in place, how did these two have such a relationship in the first place?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29732443</id>
	<title>what about peek-ing ?</title>
	<author>berbo</author>
	<datestamp>1255451400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is that covered by the restraining order?</htmltext>
<tokenext>is that covered by the restraining order ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that covered by the restraining order?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725921</id>
	<title>Duh, that's what a restraining order is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255349520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope she enjoys getting poked in the pokey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope she enjoys getting poked in the pokey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope she enjoys getting poked in the pokey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29737991</id>
	<title>The poker</title>
	<author>Mesa MIke</author>
	<datestamp>1255431540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. was put in the pokey for poking the pokee?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. was put in the pokey for poking the pokee ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. was put in the pokey for poking the pokee?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729795</id>
	<title>I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would pinging the person's IP number constitute "communication"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would pinging the person 's IP number constitute " communication " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would pinging the person's IP number constitute "communication"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29730071</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255435260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, you can poke non-friends if they're on the same network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , you can poke non-friends if they 're on the same network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, you can poke non-friends if they're on the same network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29735871</id>
	<title>Re:Something doesn't make sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255466700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Facebook only allows you to poke your friends, right?</p></div><p>Wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook only allows you to poke your friends , right ? Wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook only allows you to poke your friends, right?Wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727341</id>
	<title>This sounds like a topic...</title>
	<author>Odinlake</author>
	<datestamp>1255358400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to poke fun at.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to poke fun at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to poke fun at.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29733191</id>
	<title>Re:Duh, that's what a restraining order is</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1255454880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 billion</p><p>&gt; but just couldn't hold back from clicking the 'poke' button.</p><p>Reminds me of Martha Steward being under house arrest, stepping with one foot off the porch, then just briefly, two, which I think was a technical violation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 billion &gt; but just could n't hold back from clicking the 'poke ' button.Reminds me of Martha Steward being under house arrest , stepping with one foot off the porch , then just briefly , two , which I think was a technical violation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 billion&gt; but just couldn't hold back from clicking the 'poke' button.Reminds me of Martha Steward being under house arrest, stepping with one foot off the porch, then just briefly, two, which I think was a technical violation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726343</id>
	<title>raises the question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255351740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about some automatic ticker thing. Or just a facebook update that gets sent to the front page of that person who has a restraining order (but still friended with) against the updater?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about some automatic ticker thing .
Or just a facebook update that gets sent to the front page of that person who has a restraining order ( but still friended with ) against the updater ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about some automatic ticker thing.
Or just a facebook update that gets sent to the front page of that person who has a restraining order (but still friended with) against the updater?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727097</id>
	<title>Make that Jail</title>
	<author>ksemlerK</author>
	<datestamp>1255356360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...up to a year in prison...</i>
<br> <br>
More then 365 days = State Prison<br>
Less then 365 days = County Jail
<br> <br>
Jail is for pre-trial flight risks, and sentences which are less then one calander year.  Less then 1 year, you stay in county lockup, more then that, and you're shipped off to the state pen.  A weekend of incarceration is not prison, it's jail.  It sucks, yes.  But it's not prison.  The bodily risk in my experience in county is very minimal, (don't start anything, and you'll be left alone).  It's hours upon hours upon hours of sheer boredom, no tobacco, and no freedom, but your probably not going to end up somebody's bitch, or anything.  You'll just be bored.  Besides, if you behave, you can get work release, and be outside the walls for 10hrs a day.  (or depending on the facility, be back before lockdown).
<br> <br>
Jail sucks, but it's not prison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...up to a year in prison.. . More then 365 days = State Prison Less then 365 days = County Jail Jail is for pre-trial flight risks , and sentences which are less then one calander year .
Less then 1 year , you stay in county lockup , more then that , and you 're shipped off to the state pen .
A weekend of incarceration is not prison , it 's jail .
It sucks , yes .
But it 's not prison .
The bodily risk in my experience in county is very minimal , ( do n't start anything , and you 'll be left alone ) .
It 's hours upon hours upon hours of sheer boredom , no tobacco , and no freedom , but your probably not going to end up somebody 's bitch , or anything .
You 'll just be bored .
Besides , if you behave , you can get work release , and be outside the walls for 10hrs a day .
( or depending on the facility , be back before lockdown ) .
Jail sucks , but it 's not prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...up to a year in prison...
 
More then 365 days = State Prison
Less then 365 days = County Jail
 
Jail is for pre-trial flight risks, and sentences which are less then one calander year.
Less then 1 year, you stay in county lockup, more then that, and you're shipped off to the state pen.
A weekend of incarceration is not prison, it's jail.
It sucks, yes.
But it's not prison.
The bodily risk in my experience in county is very minimal, (don't start anything, and you'll be left alone).
It's hours upon hours upon hours of sheer boredom, no tobacco, and no freedom, but your probably not going to end up somebody's bitch, or anything.
You'll just be bored.
Besides, if you behave, you can get work release, and be outside the walls for 10hrs a day.
(or depending on the facility, be back before lockdown).
Jail sucks, but it's not prison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29797837</id>
	<title>Re:On another note - she may have planned it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255981980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the rest of the story?</p><p>Sending an e-mail to the restrained was quite likely in violation of the restraining order and could nullify it.</p><p>Furthermore, sending it reply-to-all was stupid. (Hello? They're baiting you. Just how stupid are you? You aren't supposed to contact them.) Send it reply-to-all and delete the sender; you get your message out without sending it to the person you weren't supposed to have contact with. Nobody can say you contacted them.</p><p>However, even if you do inadvertently contact someone who had a restraining order against you (they're buried in the CC'd recipients) you can legitimately argue that you didn't realise it. Inadvertent contact does not violate a restraining order.</p><p>Finally, I fail to see how a facebook poke could be "planned" in this sort of way. A poke is single-user to single-user. There's no possible way to inadvertently poke someone (it requires two clicks, a "poke" click and a "confirm" click, and you're shown the name and picture of the person you're poking both times). Poking someone who has a restraining order against you is just plain idiotic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the rest of the story ? Sending an e-mail to the restrained was quite likely in violation of the restraining order and could nullify it.Furthermore , sending it reply-to-all was stupid .
( Hello ? They 're baiting you .
Just how stupid are you ?
You are n't supposed to contact them .
) Send it reply-to-all and delete the sender ; you get your message out without sending it to the person you were n't supposed to have contact with .
Nobody can say you contacted them.However , even if you do inadvertently contact someone who had a restraining order against you ( they 're buried in the CC 'd recipients ) you can legitimately argue that you did n't realise it .
Inadvertent contact does not violate a restraining order.Finally , I fail to see how a facebook poke could be " planned " in this sort of way .
A poke is single-user to single-user .
There 's no possible way to inadvertently poke someone ( it requires two clicks , a " poke " click and a " confirm " click , and you 're shown the name and picture of the person you 're poking both times ) .
Poking someone who has a restraining order against you is just plain idiotic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the rest of the story?Sending an e-mail to the restrained was quite likely in violation of the restraining order and could nullify it.Furthermore, sending it reply-to-all was stupid.
(Hello? They're baiting you.
Just how stupid are you?
You aren't supposed to contact them.
) Send it reply-to-all and delete the sender; you get your message out without sending it to the person you weren't supposed to have contact with.
Nobody can say you contacted them.However, even if you do inadvertently contact someone who had a restraining order against you (they're buried in the CC'd recipients) you can legitimately argue that you didn't realise it.
Inadvertent contact does not violate a restraining order.Finally, I fail to see how a facebook poke could be "planned" in this sort of way.
A poke is single-user to single-user.
There's no possible way to inadvertently poke someone (it requires two clicks, a "poke" click and a "confirm" click, and you're shown the name and picture of the person you're poking both times).
Poking someone who has a restraining order against you is just plain idiotic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727045</id>
	<title>I've said it before</title>
	<author>plowboylifestyle</author>
	<datestamp>1255356060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll say it again. They should change "Poke" to "Stalk" cuz that's what it's for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll say it again .
They should change " Poke " to " Stalk " cuz that 's what it 's for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll say it again.
They should change "Poke" to "Stalk" cuz that's what it's for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727713</id>
	<title>I think I am lost</title>
	<author>db32</author>
	<datestamp>1255361100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well...I must say, I am a bit surprised.  Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled to see so many responses along the lines of "no communication is no communication".  It is just surprises me given so much of the entitlement mentality and anything on the internet is not wrong stuff.  So...my hat is off to you slashdot.</p><p>Unless it was some automated nonsense or a fake, she gets what she deserves.  If things went so far that the recipient went through the trouble of going to court to block communication then she should have known better than to initiate communication.  I'm sorry, but a restraining order is pretty much the opposite of "please poke me" regardless of it was virtual or real.  I am thrilled this is being handled this way, I am unbelievably happy that this is not turning into "let us make another 'on the internet' law!", I am devastated that my tax dollars are going to be spent dealing with this woman's stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well...I must say , I am a bit surprised .
Do n't get me wrong , I am thrilled to see so many responses along the lines of " no communication is no communication " .
It is just surprises me given so much of the entitlement mentality and anything on the internet is not wrong stuff .
So...my hat is off to you slashdot.Unless it was some automated nonsense or a fake , she gets what she deserves .
If things went so far that the recipient went through the trouble of going to court to block communication then she should have known better than to initiate communication .
I 'm sorry , but a restraining order is pretty much the opposite of " please poke me " regardless of it was virtual or real .
I am thrilled this is being handled this way , I am unbelievably happy that this is not turning into " let us make another 'on the internet ' law !
" , I am devastated that my tax dollars are going to be spent dealing with this woman 's stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well...I must say, I am a bit surprised.
Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled to see so many responses along the lines of "no communication is no communication".
It is just surprises me given so much of the entitlement mentality and anything on the internet is not wrong stuff.
So...my hat is off to you slashdot.Unless it was some automated nonsense or a fake, she gets what she deserves.
If things went so far that the recipient went through the trouble of going to court to block communication then she should have known better than to initiate communication.
I'm sorry, but a restraining order is pretty much the opposite of "please poke me" regardless of it was virtual or real.
I am thrilled this is being handled this way, I am unbelievably happy that this is not turning into "let us make another 'on the internet' law!
", I am devastated that my tax dollars are going to be spent dealing with this woman's stupidity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726523</id>
	<title>Please rename the headline to-</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255352820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People just wake up in the morning and think about who they can get a restraining order against. In fact most people who are a general nuisance or annoyance we don't get one against either. It's only the people who have pushed us to the edge that we do.  In my state (WA)<br>it is actually really hard to get a restraining order. You have to have proof of threats or actual violence. If someone just peed on your doorstep, keyed your car, etc you can't get one. So these things are quite a serious matter in some places.  I once had a crazy ex-gf who did property damage to my vehicles.  When the judge asked me if she ever had threatened to injure or kill me and when i said no he dismissed my petition against her!  So this is no "Facebook poke". It's someone abusing a common medium of conversation to try to incite the other person into anger/frustration or a similar emotional state.</p><p>The topic really should be renamed to "Tennessee women arrested for breaking restraining order via Facebook". It would be accurate unlike the sensationalist journalism that occurred in this topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People just wake up in the morning and think about who they can get a restraining order against .
In fact most people who are a general nuisance or annoyance we do n't get one against either .
It 's only the people who have pushed us to the edge that we do .
In my state ( WA ) it is actually really hard to get a restraining order .
You have to have proof of threats or actual violence .
If someone just peed on your doorstep , keyed your car , etc you ca n't get one .
So these things are quite a serious matter in some places .
I once had a crazy ex-gf who did property damage to my vehicles .
When the judge asked me if she ever had threatened to injure or kill me and when i said no he dismissed my petition against her !
So this is no " Facebook poke " .
It 's someone abusing a common medium of conversation to try to incite the other person into anger/frustration or a similar emotional state.The topic really should be renamed to " Tennessee women arrested for breaking restraining order via Facebook " .
It would be accurate unlike the sensationalist journalism that occurred in this topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People just wake up in the morning and think about who they can get a restraining order against.
In fact most people who are a general nuisance or annoyance we don't get one against either.
It's only the people who have pushed us to the edge that we do.
In my state (WA)it is actually really hard to get a restraining order.
You have to have proof of threats or actual violence.
If someone just peed on your doorstep, keyed your car, etc you can't get one.
So these things are quite a serious matter in some places.
I once had a crazy ex-gf who did property damage to my vehicles.
When the judge asked me if she ever had threatened to injure or kill me and when i said no he dismissed my petition against her!
So this is no "Facebook poke".
It's someone abusing a common medium of conversation to try to incite the other person into anger/frustration or a similar emotional state.The topic really should be renamed to "Tennessee women arrested for breaking restraining order via Facebook".
It would be accurate unlike the sensationalist journalism that occurred in this topic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727035</id>
	<title>Does this mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255356000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That Facebook allows you to poke minors? STATUTORY RAPE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That Facebook allows you to poke minors ?
STATUTORY RAPE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That Facebook allows you to poke minors?
STATUTORY RAPE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728347</id>
	<title>Re:Duh, that's what a restraining order is</title>
	<author>The Wooden Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1255366980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the person went through the trouble of getting a restraining order, you'd think that they would take 5 seconds to "unfriend".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the person went through the trouble of getting a restraining order , you 'd think that they would take 5 seconds to " unfriend " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the person went through the trouble of getting a restraining order, you'd think that they would take 5 seconds to "unfriend".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729783</id>
	<title>On the edge of a cliff...</title>
	<author>davidmcg</author>
	<datestamp>1255430940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>my facebook friend's status message said he was feeling suicidal and was standing on the edge of a cliff......so I poked him.

erm.  I'll get my coat</htmltext>
<tokenext>my facebook friend 's status message said he was feeling suicidal and was standing on the edge of a cliff......so I poked him .
erm. I 'll get my coat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my facebook friend's status message said he was feeling suicidal and was standing on the edge of a cliff......so I poked him.
erm.  I'll get my coat</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728091</id>
	<title>Stupid people...</title>
	<author>JRHelgeson</author>
	<datestamp>1255364340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine the consequences had she given a Super Poke...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine the consequences had she given a Super Poke.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine the consequences had she given a Super Poke...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729803</id>
	<title>POKE 788,52</title>
	<author>Gunstick</author>
	<datestamp>1255431120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>c64 rules!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>c64 rules !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>c64 rules!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727141</id>
	<title>tags</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255356720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where's the 'crazybitch' tag when you need it? I'd do it myself, but Slashdot doesn't let me do anything with the tags anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the 'crazybitch ' tag when you need it ?
I 'd do it myself , but Slashdot does n't let me do anything with the tags anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the 'crazybitch' tag when you need it?
I'd do it myself, but Slashdot doesn't let me do anything with the tags anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725987</id>
	<title>Re:No communication is no communication.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255349820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, not really news.  Would "Woman with a Restraining Order Against Her Arrested for Calling and Hanging Up" make the front page?  Even "Woman with a Restraining Order Against Her Arrested for Texting" wouldn't raise any eyebrows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , not really news .
Would " Woman with a Restraining Order Against Her Arrested for Calling and Hanging Up " make the front page ?
Even " Woman with a Restraining Order Against Her Arrested for Texting " would n't raise any eyebrows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, not really news.
Would "Woman with a Restraining Order Against Her Arrested for Calling and Hanging Up" make the front page?
Even "Woman with a Restraining Order Against Her Arrested for Texting" wouldn't raise any eyebrows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729733</id>
	<title>Re:I don't agree with the consensus!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255430400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now, my postulate assumes that the "victim" could have just un-friended the person to prevent being poked by that person.</i></p><p>Your postulate is wrong. If you have a public profile anyone can poke you. And the victim should *not* have to make their profile private to 'accomodate' the stalker. What part of 'stay the hell away from this person' do you not understand? Any action the victim might or might not be well advised to take is beside the point. The stalker is still stalking them in violation of the court order. You seem to be justifying 'light' stalking. Do you not understand that in this context a 'poke' has a very significant and potentially sinister message, along the lines of "I'm still here. I'm not going away. The courts can't stop me. I know where you are."?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , my postulate assumes that the " victim " could have just un-friended the person to prevent being poked by that person.Your postulate is wrong .
If you have a public profile anyone can poke you .
And the victim should * not * have to make their profile private to 'accomodate ' the stalker .
What part of 'stay the hell away from this person ' do you not understand ?
Any action the victim might or might not be well advised to take is beside the point .
The stalker is still stalking them in violation of the court order .
You seem to be justifying 'light ' stalking .
Do you not understand that in this context a 'poke ' has a very significant and potentially sinister message , along the lines of " I 'm still here .
I 'm not going away .
The courts ca n't stop me .
I know where you are .
" ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, my postulate assumes that the "victim" could have just un-friended the person to prevent being poked by that person.Your postulate is wrong.
If you have a public profile anyone can poke you.
And the victim should *not* have to make their profile private to 'accomodate' the stalker.
What part of 'stay the hell away from this person' do you not understand?
Any action the victim might or might not be well advised to take is beside the point.
The stalker is still stalking them in violation of the court order.
You seem to be justifying 'light' stalking.
Do you not understand that in this context a 'poke' has a very significant and potentially sinister message, along the lines of "I'm still here.
I'm not going away.
The courts can't stop me.
I know where you are.
"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29747391</id>
	<title>Re:Okay...</title>
	<author>ZerdZerd</author>
	<datestamp>1255546560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As said many times previously, don't you think it's a good idea to unfriend the person who's harassing you if it upsets you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As said many times previously , do n't you think it 's a good idea to unfriend the person who 's harassing you if it upsets you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As said many times previously, don't you think it's a good idea to unfriend the person who's harassing you if it upsets you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29732813</id>
	<title>I was fired once..</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1255453020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for fingering someone.  Well, for emailing the results to them and thanking them for letting me finger them, but whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for fingering someone .
Well , for emailing the results to them and thanking them for letting me finger them , but whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for fingering someone.
Well, for emailing the results to them and thanking them for letting me finger them, but whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729769</id>
	<title>Re:I don't agree with the consensus!</title>
	<author>IHC Navistar</author>
	<datestamp>1255430820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We are talking about putting a person in jail, depriving them of their liberty, because of the click of a button."</p><p>-Lose the drama. It just sounds ignorant. It wasn't because of the click of a button, it was because of the NO CONTACT ORDER that a JUDGE saw fit to issue to the plaintiff. What you feel is "The spirit of the law" is very different, and meaningless, compared to what actually *IS* the law.</p><p>"People can also be harassed by having unjust restraining orders applied against them."</p><p>-No, a *JUDGE* determines if a request for an order is substantiated. You can't get them just because you ask for them. You have to prove a serious and compelling reason, and when they are granted, have a set time limit. Once the time limit expires, you can request to renew it, but again have to prove a serious and compelling reason. Also, the JUDGE determines what actually is harassment and what isn't, NOT the defendant. No, they do not require a trial by jury, but by the same token, neither does Traffic Court. Yet, they are both perfectly legal and legitimate.</p><p>"The perpetrator logs onto facebook, see's her adversary, and clicks a button. This is similar to the perpetrator seeing her adversary at the grocery store and looking at them, or even winking or waving at them. A "poke" is not a well formed sentence. It is different than what I think the law suggests as a form of communication. What did she communicate exactly?"</p><p>-She didn't have to communicate anything. She made contact. Period. Hence the term NO CONTACT ORDER. Even with NCOs, they can even restrict how close someone can get. Even going to the grocery store and looking at them is making *visual* contact. A "poke" is, on Facebook, intended to be the electronic equivalent of walking up to somebody and "poking" them. If the recipient is notified that you specifically "poked" them, then you have made contact with them, thus violating the Terms &amp; Conditions of your NCO.</p><p>"I do not agree with depriving someone of their liberty because of one "poke"."</p><p>-So you agree with violating a lawfully-issued NO CONTACT ORDER? More specifically, a NO CONTACT ORDER lawfully issued by a JUDGE in a COURT OF LAW?</p><p>I'm guessing you're the type of delusional, bleeding-heart, "group-hug" hippie that sides with burglars when they get shot by the hardworking homeowners they try to victimize.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We are talking about putting a person in jail , depriving them of their liberty , because of the click of a button .
" -Lose the drama .
It just sounds ignorant .
It was n't because of the click of a button , it was because of the NO CONTACT ORDER that a JUDGE saw fit to issue to the plaintiff .
What you feel is " The spirit of the law " is very different , and meaningless , compared to what actually * IS * the law .
" People can also be harassed by having unjust restraining orders applied against them .
" -No , a * JUDGE * determines if a request for an order is substantiated .
You ca n't get them just because you ask for them .
You have to prove a serious and compelling reason , and when they are granted , have a set time limit .
Once the time limit expires , you can request to renew it , but again have to prove a serious and compelling reason .
Also , the JUDGE determines what actually is harassment and what is n't , NOT the defendant .
No , they do not require a trial by jury , but by the same token , neither does Traffic Court .
Yet , they are both perfectly legal and legitimate .
" The perpetrator logs onto facebook , see 's her adversary , and clicks a button .
This is similar to the perpetrator seeing her adversary at the grocery store and looking at them , or even winking or waving at them .
A " poke " is not a well formed sentence .
It is different than what I think the law suggests as a form of communication .
What did she communicate exactly ?
" -She did n't have to communicate anything .
She made contact .
Period. Hence the term NO CONTACT ORDER .
Even with NCOs , they can even restrict how close someone can get .
Even going to the grocery store and looking at them is making * visual * contact .
A " poke " is , on Facebook , intended to be the electronic equivalent of walking up to somebody and " poking " them .
If the recipient is notified that you specifically " poked " them , then you have made contact with them , thus violating the Terms &amp; Conditions of your NCO .
" I do not agree with depriving someone of their liberty because of one " poke " .
" -So you agree with violating a lawfully-issued NO CONTACT ORDER ?
More specifically , a NO CONTACT ORDER lawfully issued by a JUDGE in a COURT OF LAW ? I 'm guessing you 're the type of delusional , bleeding-heart , " group-hug " hippie that sides with burglars when they get shot by the hardworking homeowners they try to victimize.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We are talking about putting a person in jail, depriving them of their liberty, because of the click of a button.
"-Lose the drama.
It just sounds ignorant.
It wasn't because of the click of a button, it was because of the NO CONTACT ORDER that a JUDGE saw fit to issue to the plaintiff.
What you feel is "The spirit of the law" is very different, and meaningless, compared to what actually *IS* the law.
"People can also be harassed by having unjust restraining orders applied against them.
"-No, a *JUDGE* determines if a request for an order is substantiated.
You can't get them just because you ask for them.
You have to prove a serious and compelling reason, and when they are granted, have a set time limit.
Once the time limit expires, you can request to renew it, but again have to prove a serious and compelling reason.
Also, the JUDGE determines what actually is harassment and what isn't, NOT the defendant.
No, they do not require a trial by jury, but by the same token, neither does Traffic Court.
Yet, they are both perfectly legal and legitimate.
"The perpetrator logs onto facebook, see's her adversary, and clicks a button.
This is similar to the perpetrator seeing her adversary at the grocery store and looking at them, or even winking or waving at them.
A "poke" is not a well formed sentence.
It is different than what I think the law suggests as a form of communication.
What did she communicate exactly?
"-She didn't have to communicate anything.
She made contact.
Period. Hence the term NO CONTACT ORDER.
Even with NCOs, they can even restrict how close someone can get.
Even going to the grocery store and looking at them is making *visual* contact.
A "poke" is, on Facebook, intended to be the electronic equivalent of walking up to somebody and "poking" them.
If the recipient is notified that you specifically "poked" them, then you have made contact with them, thus violating the Terms &amp; Conditions of your NCO.
"I do not agree with depriving someone of their liberty because of one "poke".
"-So you agree with violating a lawfully-issued NO CONTACT ORDER?
More specifically, a NO CONTACT ORDER lawfully issued by a JUDGE in a COURT OF LAW?I'm guessing you're the type of delusional, bleeding-heart, "group-hug" hippie that sides with burglars when they get shot by the hardworking homeowners they try to victimize.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728055</id>
	<title>I wonder...</title>
	<author>Bysshe</author>
	<datestamp>1255364040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if she held the cursor hovered over the poke link and said "I'm not touching youuuuuuu, I'm not touching youuuuuuuu!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if she held the cursor hovered over the poke link and said " I 'm not touching youuuuuuu , I 'm not touching youuuuuuuu !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if she held the cursor hovered over the poke link and said "I'm not touching youuuuuuu, I'm not touching youuuuuuuu!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29797709</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid decision by an IGNORANT court</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255981500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You, sir, are and idiot.</p><p>Let me clarify. A FUCKING idiot.</p><p>A restraining order which specifies NO CONTACT between the defendant and the restrained means exactly that. No contact. It doesn't matter one fucking bit whether it's a telegram, a pony express letter, a phone call, a long-distance call, a MySpace message, a facebook poke, or anything else.</p><p>It doesn't matter one bit that you think it's someone's "right" to use these forms of communication. If the court said you DON'T get to communicate with someone, you don't get to use ANY form of communication to contact them, electronic or otherwise.</p><p>Anyway, that being out of the way, let's address the other worry you voiced.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>if you reply to the mail, your reply goes to 150 other people. if you have a restraining order concerning one of the 150 on that list, you are violating court order.</p><p>that's the incompetence of the courts and failure of the law to account for this.</p></div><p>If you have a restraining order preventing you from contacting someone, you'd better be <em>damn sure</em> to check the list of recipients before you hit "reply-to all" on a mass mailer. If it's some sort of talk group and you didn't know the person was a recipient, you have an out, but if they respond to let you know they're in the group then you'd damn well better not send any more messages. Inadvertent contact can be talked out in court, but if you knowingly contact the person your goose is cooked.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>these laws were made centuries ago. no such communication existed.</p></div><p>One-to-many, non-face-to-face communication didn't exist? Bullshit. It's called a community bulletin board (a real one, before the interwebz were invented), and yes, posting public notices where you know your restrainer will read them most certainly does violate the restraining order.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>what s/he did is basically violating someone's rights</p></div><p>Well, yeah, that's the whole point of a restraining order. You have a right to free speech, but there are laws against harassment and stalking. If you violate those laws, your right to free speech (with the harassed) can be taken away. Similarly if you murder someone your rights to "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" will be temporarily or permanently taken away. Felons lose their second-amendment right to bear arms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You , sir , are and idiot.Let me clarify .
A FUCKING idiot.A restraining order which specifies NO CONTACT between the defendant and the restrained means exactly that .
No contact .
It does n't matter one fucking bit whether it 's a telegram , a pony express letter , a phone call , a long-distance call , a MySpace message , a facebook poke , or anything else.It does n't matter one bit that you think it 's someone 's " right " to use these forms of communication .
If the court said you DO N'T get to communicate with someone , you do n't get to use ANY form of communication to contact them , electronic or otherwise.Anyway , that being out of the way , let 's address the other worry you voiced.if you reply to the mail , your reply goes to 150 other people .
if you have a restraining order concerning one of the 150 on that list , you are violating court order.that 's the incompetence of the courts and failure of the law to account for this.If you have a restraining order preventing you from contacting someone , you 'd better be damn sure to check the list of recipients before you hit " reply-to all " on a mass mailer .
If it 's some sort of talk group and you did n't know the person was a recipient , you have an out , but if they respond to let you know they 're in the group then you 'd damn well better not send any more messages .
Inadvertent contact can be talked out in court , but if you knowingly contact the person your goose is cooked.these laws were made centuries ago .
no such communication existed.One-to-many , non-face-to-face communication did n't exist ?
Bullshit. It 's called a community bulletin board ( a real one , before the interwebz were invented ) , and yes , posting public notices where you know your restrainer will read them most certainly does violate the restraining order.what s/he did is basically violating someone 's rightsWell , yeah , that 's the whole point of a restraining order .
You have a right to free speech , but there are laws against harassment and stalking .
If you violate those laws , your right to free speech ( with the harassed ) can be taken away .
Similarly if you murder someone your rights to " liberty and the pursuit of happiness " will be temporarily or permanently taken away .
Felons lose their second-amendment right to bear arms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, sir, are and idiot.Let me clarify.
A FUCKING idiot.A restraining order which specifies NO CONTACT between the defendant and the restrained means exactly that.
No contact.
It doesn't matter one fucking bit whether it's a telegram, a pony express letter, a phone call, a long-distance call, a MySpace message, a facebook poke, or anything else.It doesn't matter one bit that you think it's someone's "right" to use these forms of communication.
If the court said you DON'T get to communicate with someone, you don't get to use ANY form of communication to contact them, electronic or otherwise.Anyway, that being out of the way, let's address the other worry you voiced.if you reply to the mail, your reply goes to 150 other people.
if you have a restraining order concerning one of the 150 on that list, you are violating court order.that's the incompetence of the courts and failure of the law to account for this.If you have a restraining order preventing you from contacting someone, you'd better be damn sure to check the list of recipients before you hit "reply-to all" on a mass mailer.
If it's some sort of talk group and you didn't know the person was a recipient, you have an out, but if they respond to let you know they're in the group then you'd damn well better not send any more messages.
Inadvertent contact can be talked out in court, but if you knowingly contact the person your goose is cooked.these laws were made centuries ago.
no such communication existed.One-to-many, non-face-to-face communication didn't exist?
Bullshit. It's called a community bulletin board (a real one, before the interwebz were invented), and yes, posting public notices where you know your restrainer will read them most certainly does violate the restraining order.what s/he did is basically violating someone's rightsWell, yeah, that's the whole point of a restraining order.
You have a right to free speech, but there are laws against harassment and stalking.
If you violate those laws, your right to free speech (with the harassed) can be taken away.
Similarly if you murder someone your rights to "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" will be temporarily or permanently taken away.
Felons lose their second-amendment right to bear arms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726647</id>
	<title>weak evidence</title>
	<author>anonymous9991</author>
	<datestamp>1255353420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>evidence was a screen capture? you know how easy it is to create fake screens, most people with any photoshop like app and html can do one in an hour</htmltext>
<tokenext>evidence was a screen capture ?
you know how easy it is to create fake screens , most people with any photoshop like app and html can do one in an hour</tokentext>
<sentencetext>evidence was a screen capture?
you know how easy it is to create fake screens, most people with any photoshop like app and html can do one in an hour</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726719</id>
	<title>Why is this news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255353780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Such restraining orders may or may not be justified or reasonable, but she clearly violated the order.  I don't see that the fact that a "Facebook poke" was involved is relevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Such restraining orders may or may not be justified or reasonable , but she clearly violated the order .
I do n't see that the fact that a " Facebook poke " was involved is relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such restraining orders may or may not be justified or reasonable, but she clearly violated the order.
I don't see that the fact that a "Facebook poke" was involved is relevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726353</id>
	<title>Ok .. so who did it?</title>
	<author>OzPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1255351860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Playing devil's advocate here)</p><p>Yes we all agree that the woman should get locked up for breaching a restraining order<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. IF SHE DID IT.</p><p>The question I have is how do you prove this?</p><p>She could have simply been stalking her victim on facebook and her cat walked across the keyboard at an inappropriate moment et voila one cat induced restraining order breach.</p><p>Any number of things from another household member to a hacked computer could have done this, so what is the level of proof required to lock her away.  I hope that it is not just "well she says she didn't do it, but she was in the house with the computer at the time - just forget the fact that other people were in the same house as well".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Playing devil 's advocate here ) Yes we all agree that the woman should get locked up for breaching a restraining order .. IF SHE DID IT.The question I have is how do you prove this ? She could have simply been stalking her victim on facebook and her cat walked across the keyboard at an inappropriate moment et voila one cat induced restraining order breach.Any number of things from another household member to a hacked computer could have done this , so what is the level of proof required to lock her away .
I hope that it is not just " well she says she did n't do it , but she was in the house with the computer at the time - just forget the fact that other people were in the same house as well " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Playing devil's advocate here)Yes we all agree that the woman should get locked up for breaching a restraining order .. IF SHE DID IT.The question I have is how do you prove this?She could have simply been stalking her victim on facebook and her cat walked across the keyboard at an inappropriate moment et voila one cat induced restraining order breach.Any number of things from another household member to a hacked computer could have done this, so what is the level of proof required to lock her away.
I hope that it is not just "well she says she didn't do it, but she was in the house with the computer at the time - just forget the fact that other people were in the same house as well".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29730917</id>
	<title>Re:I don't agree with the consensus!</title>
	<author>Ash-Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1255443720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We are talking about putting a person in jail, depriving them of their liberty, because of the click of a button.</p></div></blockquote><p>*starts rapping with a goofy dance*</p><p>You see, on these disks we have frozen in time<br>The creativity of someone's mind!<br>Do you think, that because, with a flick of a key<br>You can copy that game, that the work is free?<br>This creativity, we protect it by law1<br>We value so highly, what the mind's eye saw<br>Don't copy! Don't copy that floppy!</p><p>D-D-Do-Do-Don't...Don't copy.. Don't copy that floppy!</p><p>To do the right thing, it's really simple for you.<br>The copyright law, it will tell you what to do!<br>Buy one, for every computer you use.<br>Anything else is like going to the store<br>Taking the disk, and walking out the door<br>It's called thiefin', stealin', taking what's not yours<br>Is that really where you want your life to go?<br>Think about it, I don't think so.<br>Don't copy! Don't copy that floppy!</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI" title="youtube.com">Source</a> [youtube.com]</p><ul> <li>In summary, yes, many aspire to the belief that click of a button, flick of a key is enough to send you to prison.</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are talking about putting a person in jail , depriving them of their liberty , because of the click of a button .
* starts rapping with a goofy dance * You see , on these disks we have frozen in timeThe creativity of someone 's mind ! Do you think , that because , with a flick of a keyYou can copy that game , that the work is free ? This creativity , we protect it by law1We value so highly , what the mind 's eye sawDo n't copy !
Do n't copy that floppy ! D-D-Do-Do-Do n't...Do n't copy.. Do n't copy that floppy ! To do the right thing , it 's really simple for you.The copyright law , it will tell you what to do ! Buy one , for every computer you use.Anything else is like going to the storeTaking the disk , and walking out the doorIt 's called thiefin ' , stealin ' , taking what 's not yoursIs that really where you want your life to go ? Think about it , I do n't think so.Do n't copy !
Do n't copy that floppy ! Source [ youtube.com ] In summary , yes , many aspire to the belief that click of a button , flick of a key is enough to send you to prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are talking about putting a person in jail, depriving them of their liberty, because of the click of a button.
*starts rapping with a goofy dance*You see, on these disks we have frozen in timeThe creativity of someone's mind!Do you think, that because, with a flick of a keyYou can copy that game, that the work is free?This creativity, we protect it by law1We value so highly, what the mind's eye sawDon't copy!
Don't copy that floppy!D-D-Do-Do-Don't...Don't copy.. Don't copy that floppy!To do the right thing, it's really simple for you.The copyright law, it will tell you what to do!Buy one, for every computer you use.Anything else is like going to the storeTaking the disk, and walking out the doorIt's called thiefin', stealin', taking what's not yoursIs that really where you want your life to go?Think about it, I don't think so.Don't copy!
Don't copy that floppy!Source [youtube.com] In summary, yes, many aspire to the belief that click of a button, flick of a key is enough to send you to prison.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729731</id>
	<title>Stupid decision by an IGNORANT court</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1255430400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>judges of today are yet unaware of what batch communication is. someone sends a mail to 150 people by ccing them. if you reply to the mail, your reply goes to 150 other people. if you have a restraining order concerning one of the 150 on that list, you are violating court order.</p><p>that's the incompetence of the courts and failure of the law to account for this. these laws were made centuries ago. no such communication existed.</p><p>you can NOT bar people from using the technical amenities of modern information technology ( reply all feature, social networking sites' various features, etc). its against human rights.</p><p>i dont give a FLYING fuck about the person who was 'disturbed' by the poke - what s/he did is basically violating someone's rights. its as if having courts ban someone from using long distance calls, because if someone does a long distance call, the call will pass through a node that the person with the restraining order is also connected to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>judges of today are yet unaware of what batch communication is .
someone sends a mail to 150 people by ccing them .
if you reply to the mail , your reply goes to 150 other people .
if you have a restraining order concerning one of the 150 on that list , you are violating court order.that 's the incompetence of the courts and failure of the law to account for this .
these laws were made centuries ago .
no such communication existed.you can NOT bar people from using the technical amenities of modern information technology ( reply all feature , social networking sites ' various features , etc ) .
its against human rights.i dont give a FLYING fuck about the person who was 'disturbed ' by the poke - what s/he did is basically violating someone 's rights .
its as if having courts ban someone from using long distance calls , because if someone does a long distance call , the call will pass through a node that the person with the restraining order is also connected to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>judges of today are yet unaware of what batch communication is.
someone sends a mail to 150 people by ccing them.
if you reply to the mail, your reply goes to 150 other people.
if you have a restraining order concerning one of the 150 on that list, you are violating court order.that's the incompetence of the courts and failure of the law to account for this.
these laws were made centuries ago.
no such communication existed.you can NOT bar people from using the technical amenities of modern information technology ( reply all feature, social networking sites' various features, etc).
its against human rights.i dont give a FLYING fuck about the person who was 'disturbed' by the poke - what s/he did is basically violating someone's rights.
its as if having courts ban someone from using long distance calls, because if someone does a long distance call, the call will pass through a node that the person with the restraining order is also connected to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729323</id>
	<title>That's all well and good, but</title>
	<author>shitzu</author>
	<datestamp>1255466580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't all pokers be arrested?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't all pokers be arrested ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't all pokers be arrested?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728979</id>
	<title>It's Called Baiting . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255375560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First in order for the woman to get arrested the the plaintiff had to notify the authorities that the defendant made contact with them regardless of form. In this case it was a poke on Facebook. More than likely the plaintiff purposely left the defendant as a friend on Facebook hoping that they would initiate some form of contact that could be used as proof. Now here's the "genuine" scary part a plaintiff does not have to have proof that the defendant made contact. All the defendant has to do is call the authorities and say the defendant made contact regardless if they really did or not. The authorities are obligated to find and arrest the defendant and hold them pending an investigation. If after the investigation no proof could be conjured up the defendant would be set free. Never the less it's a real mess for the defendant they should plan on having an extended stay at the ole' CJ. Now because the plaintiff has proof of contact it will be at a judges discretion as to whether or not they want to enforce the penalties for breaking a an NCO (no contact order)</p><p>BTW NCO's are different beasts altogether than a restraining order. No Contact Orders are only imposed by the courts and restraining orders are brought about by the plaintiff making a complaint. In this case as one can determine from the wording of the article</p><p>"Jackson had been banned by courts from 'telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating' with the apparent poke recipient"</p><p>Keywords: banned by courts from 'telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating</p><p>This indicates that it was an NCO imposed by the court to protect the plaintiff regardless of whether the plaintiff wanted it imposed or not. It was issued the same day the defendant was arraigned in court and would stay in effect all the way to the trial if there was to be one. My guess is that the defendant pleaded not guilty and a hearing date was set hence the reason for the NCO. The kicker is that if a defendant violates an NCO it is a separate offense altogether from the original complaint and it's treated as a felony with up to a $1,000 dollar fine and/or up to one year in jail.</p><p>Nine times out of ten NCO's imposed by the courts are overkill and unnecessary. However the reasons for an NCO being placed at all stem from incidents where a tragedy took place. For instance two years ago in the state of Idaho they had a beheading where a young woman's boyfriend was released from jail stalked her, kidnapped her, and cut her head off.</p><p>So the next time you feel like having a fight with your girlfriend, boyfriend, wife, husband or significant other, even a just a friend and someone decides to involve the authorities better make sure it's being done for the right reason and not because you just want the other party to spend a night in jail. Depending on what jurisdiction one is in at the time rest assured that whomever is carted off to jail wins all kinds of neat prizes. An orange jumsuit, a blanket, a pillow, tooth brush, shampoo kit and a brand new NCO smile your the next contestant on you have no more life.</p><p>If all of that is not enough to scare you "and this could happen to anyone and I mean anyone" think about how it would feel to have a document hanging over your head where at any given moment the plaintiff could drop a dime on you all because they are having a bad day. Oh yes "the plaintiff" for better or for worse now owns your behind and depending on what kind of person they are is going to determine how the rest of your life is going to turn out. Prosecuting attorneys LOVE NCO's love, love, love them because all they care about is the "win" and having an NCO in place means they have total control over the outcome. If you find yourself ever in a situation like this batten down the hatches and find yourself a reputable attorney preferably one that is a former district attorney turned defense attorney that is going to be your ONLY course for salvation. And for all purposes rendered make no contact what so ever with the plaintiff not even so much as a poke on Facebook otherwise consider your goose cooked.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First in order for the woman to get arrested the the plaintiff had to notify the authorities that the defendant made contact with them regardless of form .
In this case it was a poke on Facebook .
More than likely the plaintiff purposely left the defendant as a friend on Facebook hoping that they would initiate some form of contact that could be used as proof .
Now here 's the " genuine " scary part a plaintiff does not have to have proof that the defendant made contact .
All the defendant has to do is call the authorities and say the defendant made contact regardless if they really did or not .
The authorities are obligated to find and arrest the defendant and hold them pending an investigation .
If after the investigation no proof could be conjured up the defendant would be set free .
Never the less it 's a real mess for the defendant they should plan on having an extended stay at the ole ' CJ .
Now because the plaintiff has proof of contact it will be at a judges discretion as to whether or not they want to enforce the penalties for breaking a an NCO ( no contact order ) BTW NCO 's are different beasts altogether than a restraining order .
No Contact Orders are only imposed by the courts and restraining orders are brought about by the plaintiff making a complaint .
In this case as one can determine from the wording of the article " Jackson had been banned by courts from 'telephoning , contacting or otherwise communicating ' with the apparent poke recipient " Keywords : banned by courts from 'telephoning , contacting or otherwise communicatingThis indicates that it was an NCO imposed by the court to protect the plaintiff regardless of whether the plaintiff wanted it imposed or not .
It was issued the same day the defendant was arraigned in court and would stay in effect all the way to the trial if there was to be one .
My guess is that the defendant pleaded not guilty and a hearing date was set hence the reason for the NCO .
The kicker is that if a defendant violates an NCO it is a separate offense altogether from the original complaint and it 's treated as a felony with up to a $ 1,000 dollar fine and/or up to one year in jail.Nine times out of ten NCO 's imposed by the courts are overkill and unnecessary .
However the reasons for an NCO being placed at all stem from incidents where a tragedy took place .
For instance two years ago in the state of Idaho they had a beheading where a young woman 's boyfriend was released from jail stalked her , kidnapped her , and cut her head off.So the next time you feel like having a fight with your girlfriend , boyfriend , wife , husband or significant other , even a just a friend and someone decides to involve the authorities better make sure it 's being done for the right reason and not because you just want the other party to spend a night in jail .
Depending on what jurisdiction one is in at the time rest assured that whomever is carted off to jail wins all kinds of neat prizes .
An orange jumsuit , a blanket , a pillow , tooth brush , shampoo kit and a brand new NCO smile your the next contestant on you have no more life.If all of that is not enough to scare you " and this could happen to anyone and I mean anyone " think about how it would feel to have a document hanging over your head where at any given moment the plaintiff could drop a dime on you all because they are having a bad day .
Oh yes " the plaintiff " for better or for worse now owns your behind and depending on what kind of person they are is going to determine how the rest of your life is going to turn out .
Prosecuting attorneys LOVE NCO 's love , love , love them because all they care about is the " win " and having an NCO in place means they have total control over the outcome .
If you find yourself ever in a situation like this batten down the hatches and find yourself a reputable attorney preferably one that is a former district attorney turned defense attorney that is going to be your ONLY course for salvation .
And for all purposes rendered make no contact what so ever with the plaintiff not even so much as a poke on Facebook otherwise consider your goose cooked .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>First in order for the woman to get arrested the the plaintiff had to notify the authorities that the defendant made contact with them regardless of form.
In this case it was a poke on Facebook.
More than likely the plaintiff purposely left the defendant as a friend on Facebook hoping that they would initiate some form of contact that could be used as proof.
Now here's the "genuine" scary part a plaintiff does not have to have proof that the defendant made contact.
All the defendant has to do is call the authorities and say the defendant made contact regardless if they really did or not.
The authorities are obligated to find and arrest the defendant and hold them pending an investigation.
If after the investigation no proof could be conjured up the defendant would be set free.
Never the less it's a real mess for the defendant they should plan on having an extended stay at the ole' CJ.
Now because the plaintiff has proof of contact it will be at a judges discretion as to whether or not they want to enforce the penalties for breaking a an NCO (no contact order)BTW NCO's are different beasts altogether than a restraining order.
No Contact Orders are only imposed by the courts and restraining orders are brought about by the plaintiff making a complaint.
In this case as one can determine from the wording of the article"Jackson had been banned by courts from 'telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating' with the apparent poke recipient"Keywords: banned by courts from 'telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicatingThis indicates that it was an NCO imposed by the court to protect the plaintiff regardless of whether the plaintiff wanted it imposed or not.
It was issued the same day the defendant was arraigned in court and would stay in effect all the way to the trial if there was to be one.
My guess is that the defendant pleaded not guilty and a hearing date was set hence the reason for the NCO.
The kicker is that if a defendant violates an NCO it is a separate offense altogether from the original complaint and it's treated as a felony with up to a $1,000 dollar fine and/or up to one year in jail.Nine times out of ten NCO's imposed by the courts are overkill and unnecessary.
However the reasons for an NCO being placed at all stem from incidents where a tragedy took place.
For instance two years ago in the state of Idaho they had a beheading where a young woman's boyfriend was released from jail stalked her, kidnapped her, and cut her head off.So the next time you feel like having a fight with your girlfriend, boyfriend, wife, husband or significant other, even a just a friend and someone decides to involve the authorities better make sure it's being done for the right reason and not because you just want the other party to spend a night in jail.
Depending on what jurisdiction one is in at the time rest assured that whomever is carted off to jail wins all kinds of neat prizes.
An orange jumsuit, a blanket, a pillow, tooth brush, shampoo kit and a brand new NCO smile your the next contestant on you have no more life.If all of that is not enough to scare you "and this could happen to anyone and I mean anyone" think about how it would feel to have a document hanging over your head where at any given moment the plaintiff could drop a dime on you all because they are having a bad day.
Oh yes "the plaintiff" for better or for worse now owns your behind and depending on what kind of person they are is going to determine how the rest of your life is going to turn out.
Prosecuting attorneys LOVE NCO's love, love, love them because all they care about is the "win" and having an NCO in place means they have total control over the outcome.
If you find yourself ever in a situation like this batten down the hatches and find yourself a reputable attorney preferably one that is a former district attorney turned defense attorney that is going to be your ONLY course for salvation.
And for all purposes rendered make no contact what so ever with the plaintiff not even so much as a poke on Facebook otherwise consider your goose cooked.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727723</id>
	<title>captain obvious here.....</title>
	<author>gemada</author>
	<datestamp>1255361160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>why wouldn't the pokee have just blocked the poker from even seeing their profile on Facebook before it reached this stage?</htmltext>
<tokenext>why would n't the pokee have just blocked the poker from even seeing their profile on Facebook before it reached this stage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why wouldn't the pokee have just blocked the poker from even seeing their profile on Facebook before it reached this stage?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729969</id>
	<title>!news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255433700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because something happens over a new medium, but with clear equivalents in current understanding, doesn't make this news.</p><p>OMG how complicated is this internet thing?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because something happens over a new medium , but with clear equivalents in current understanding , does n't make this news.OMG how complicated is this internet thing ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because something happens over a new medium, but with clear equivalents in current understanding, doesn't make this news.OMG how complicated is this internet thing?!?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29731179</id>
	<title>wtf is a poke?</title>
	<author>the-pdm</author>
	<datestamp>1255445280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTF is a poke? I've seen it, I've clicked on it, I even sent one, but I still don't know wtf a poke is or what it is for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF is a poke ?
I 've seen it , I 've clicked on it , I even sent one , but I still do n't know wtf a poke is or what it is for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF is a poke?
I've seen it, I've clicked on it, I even sent one, but I still don't know wtf a poke is or what it is for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727449</id>
	<title>What are you in for?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255359180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I poked someone on Facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I poked someone on Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I poked someone on Facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726221</id>
	<title>Okay...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255351080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I admit I don't know what this woman did exactly to get the restraining order, but I've been a victim of harassment. Even though a Facebook poke is a pretty negligible sort of contact, the psychological toll is takes on who she is being barred from communicating with could still be pretty great. I know that just seeing a photo of the person who was doing things to me was enough to make my pulse race and my stomach churn. Poking someone on Facebook after a restraining order tells the victim, "I still have ways to get to you." I'm glad she's being prosecuted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I admit I do n't know what this woman did exactly to get the restraining order , but I 've been a victim of harassment .
Even though a Facebook poke is a pretty negligible sort of contact , the psychological toll is takes on who she is being barred from communicating with could still be pretty great .
I know that just seeing a photo of the person who was doing things to me was enough to make my pulse race and my stomach churn .
Poking someone on Facebook after a restraining order tells the victim , " I still have ways to get to you .
" I 'm glad she 's being prosecuted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I admit I don't know what this woman did exactly to get the restraining order, but I've been a victim of harassment.
Even though a Facebook poke is a pretty negligible sort of contact, the psychological toll is takes on who she is being barred from communicating with could still be pretty great.
I know that just seeing a photo of the person who was doing things to me was enough to make my pulse race and my stomach churn.
Poking someone on Facebook after a restraining order tells the victim, "I still have ways to get to you.
" I'm glad she's being prosecuted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727111</id>
	<title>Sounds fair to me</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1255356420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are way too many poker-faced people who should be in the pokey for poking someone.</p><p>That said, they should have forced her FB status update to read "In Prison For Breaking the Law" and changed her FB picture to be that of someone wearing an orange jumpsuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are way too many poker-faced people who should be in the pokey for poking someone.That said , they should have forced her FB status update to read " In Prison For Breaking the Law " and changed her FB picture to be that of someone wearing an orange jumpsuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are way too many poker-faced people who should be in the pokey for poking someone.That said, they should have forced her FB status update to read "In Prison For Breaking the Law" and changed her FB picture to be that of someone wearing an orange jumpsuit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726399</id>
	<title>thought you could only poke a friend ?</title>
	<author>Brigadier</author>
	<datestamp>1255352040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought you could only poke a friend, which would mean they both agreed to add each other and thus allow interaction. If the facebook friendship was initiated before the initial court order wouldn't that require that it be ended by both parties and the act of keeping it would mean there was an agreement between both parties ? That's sorta like getting a restraining order and continuing to live with the person you had teh order againts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought you could only poke a friend , which would mean they both agreed to add each other and thus allow interaction .
If the facebook friendship was initiated before the initial court order would n't that require that it be ended by both parties and the act of keeping it would mean there was an agreement between both parties ?
That 's sorta like getting a restraining order and continuing to live with the person you had teh order againts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought you could only poke a friend, which would mean they both agreed to add each other and thus allow interaction.
If the facebook friendship was initiated before the initial court order wouldn't that require that it be ended by both parties and the act of keeping it would mean there was an agreement between both parties ?
That's sorta like getting a restraining order and continuing to live with the person you had teh order againts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726899</id>
	<title>ya know...</title>
	<author>phunhippy</author>
	<datestamp>1255354980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that is poketastic</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that is poketastic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that is poketastic</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29797837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29735871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29747391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29731677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29733191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29797709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29730071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29730917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29731723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_2237246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726719
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29797709
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29730681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29735871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29731179
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29731677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29730071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29731723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29747391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29727045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29730917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29733191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29728379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29729787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29797837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29726399
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_2237246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_2237246.29725987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
