Google+ invite lands man in jail • Hacker News Board

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#171

Post by tjgq » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 8:49 PM UTC

rjknight wrote: post #8

tjgq wrote: post #3

The article focuses mainly on whether the man did indeed send the Google+ invitation to his former girlfriend. It seems to me that the actual troubling question is whether sending a Google+ invitation can be considered a violation of a restraining order. The bar is far too low when receiving a single inconsequential message that you have full ability to ignore can be considered a form of harassment.

I disagree. A restraining order is precisely meant to bar all forms of communication so that we don't need to decide on a case-by-case basis which communications violate the order, which would lead to highly unequal enforcement with some people being punished for things that others are not punished for.

Perhaps I wasn't too clear in my original post. I was making a normative statement, not a positive one. In other words, I accept that the actual law may consider this a violation; I'm questioning whether the law itself is acceptable in those terms.

Then again, I don't live in the USA, and the concept of a restraining order is a bit alien to me since it's not something heard of as much over here. There surely is some cultural bias at play.

I don't think it's too much to ask for courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. Establishment of intent is one of the main things courts exist for.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#172

Post by tjgq » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 8:57 PM UTC

buro9 wrote: post #6

tjgq wrote: post #3

The article focuses mainly on whether the man did indeed send the Google+ invitation to his former girlfriend. It seems to me that the actual troubling question is whether sending a Google+ invitation can be considered a violation of a restraining order. The bar is far too low when receiving a single inconsequential message that you have full ability to ignore can be considered a form of harassment.

A restraining order is against any form of contact. You (and I) don't know the circumstances that led to the restraining order. There may have been violence, intimidation, harassment, abuse. This may even form part of a consistent pattern of abuse. The woman in this case may feel so traumatised by any reminder of her ex, or contact from him, that the act of receiving an email from him (on his behalf) may actually be…

Even though I don't know the specifics, I take issue with the very idea that merely contacting someone can constitute harassment. At the very least, the content of the message should be taken into account. Intent, more than raw actions taken out of context, is what determines wrongdoing.

Note that I'm not suggesting that the actual law is being misinterpreted. I'm merely stating my personal views about the existence of such a law.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#173

Post by syntheticnature » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 9:01 PM UTC

aestra wrote: post #132

DanBC wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. The problem is that the order of events is sometimes: Person a: "i swear in court under penalties that person B poses a risk of harm to me and I want the court to prevent access" Judge "person b must not contact person a at all. This is a temporary order until we get a full hearing. Serve the papers so that person b knows about this because their not here for this meeting." Person b: "my life sucks.…

>clicky clicky friend request sent to everyone in person b's list The person with the restraining order has the responsibly to remove that person from their lists. Email, phone, etc, so they don't accidentally press a wrong button, butt dial, etc. I know once or twice I dialed the wrong contact. They also have the responsibility to drive a different way home so they don't go by their house. They didn't take the prope…

Per the article, she might have been notified because he was still in her contacts -- something he cannot help.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#174

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 9:10 PM UTC

buro9 wrote: post #6

tjgq wrote: post #3

The article focuses mainly on whether the man did indeed send the Google+ invitation to his former girlfriend. It seems to me that the actual troubling question is whether sending a Google+ invitation can be considered a violation of a restraining order. The bar is far too low when receiving a single inconsequential message that you have full ability to ignore can be considered a form of harassment.

A restraining order is against any form of contact. You (and I) don't know the circumstances that led to the restraining order. There may have been violence, intimidation, harassment, abuse. This may even form part of a consistent pattern of abuse. The woman in this case may feel so traumatised by any reminder of her ex, or contact from him, that the act of receiving an email from him (on his behalf) may actually be…

> A restraining order is against any form of contact.

A restraining order has specific terms that address exactly what conduct it restrains. It may or may not be against any form of contact [1]. So the question is really, is the specific kind of conduct here within what was actually prohibited in the order (a secondary consideration, if it was, might be whether or not it should have been included in the order, but the remedy for that is to appeal the order, not to defy it and expect not to face consequences.)

[1] See, for instance, the the California template domestic violence restraining order, with check-off boxes for standard terms (including #21 -- which is completely free text) that may or may not be imposed in any particular order: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dv110.pdf

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#175

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 9:14 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #113

jessaustin wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, maybe. I can't really picture a law forbidding automated email that wouldn't have horrible consequences for most citizens. Perhaps the courts ought to just accept that the world changes and change along with it?

The world changes, but at the end of the day, unwanted, unsolicited contact is the same whether it's via e-mail, text message, phone call, fax, carrier pigeon, etc. The fact that technology makes it easier for companies like Facebook and Google to do stupid things like spam your contact list doesn't mean that courts should change unrelated rules as a result.

...unwanted, unsolicited contact is the same whether it's via...

You say that as if unsolicited communication is some kind of basic, elemental thing, like murder or robbery. In fact it is a deliberate exception to speech rights, which exception itself has plenty of exceptions. For instance, there doesn't seem to be much caselaw preventing junk mail, perhaps because that's the only thing keeping the USPS in operation. Keep in mind, too, that what courts may include in orders varies among jurisdictions.

One could certainly imagine a new law intended to encourage services that send automatic communications to be more careful about violating restraining orders. One could not imagine such a law actually succeeding in its stated purpose, nor could the imagination encompass such a law not having horrible follow-on effects. It's much more plausible to recall that courts may only use their injunction power to achieve equitable remedies, and that in a context of involuntary electronic messages there is nothing equitable about holding someone responsible for communications she did not create.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#176

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 9:16 PM UTC

king_jester wrote: post #86

pervycreeper wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(IANAL) Restraining orders are usually granted without requiring any evidence, aside from the testimony of the person requesting it. I believe it is a common strategy for (especially) women to exploit this in order to gain some sort of advantage over their partners following a breakup.

> I believe it is a common strategy for (especially) women to exploit this in order to gain some sort of advantage over their partners following a breakup. Perhaps the reason why women seek TROs and ROs is because they are much more likely then men to be the victim of physical assault, stalking, harassment, or murder from their partners or former partners.

> Perhaps the reason why women seek TROs and ROs is because they are much more likely then men to be the victim of physical assault, stalking, harassment, or murder from their partners or former partners.

Whether or not that is the case, it is also possible that it is more that when they are (or, in the case of murder, expect to be) the victims of such things, they feel they don't have other effective remedies outside the legal system, whereas men feel more able to respond effectively (whether or not legally) with physical violence.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#177

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 9:19 PM UTC

pervycreeper wrote: post #23

tluyben2 wrote: post #10

I watch American tv shows and movies and am well aware of restraining orders but thought it was something very rare and almost never happens; now I read this. Is it that normal to get one 'after a breakup'? I have never heard anything like that in my country except for hardcore, life threatening criminal situations. Is it that easy to get one there and you actually get rounded up and hauled to a cell for violating wh…

(IANAL) Restraining orders are usually granted without requiring any evidence, aside from the testimony of the person requesting it. I believe it is a common strategy for (especially) women to exploit this in order to gain some sort of advantage over their partners following a breakup.

The problem here doesn't seem to be the restraining order itself, it seems to be -- if the description of how the invite in question could have been generated is correct -- that the police made an arrest without anything approaching probable cause to suspect that the arrestee had done anything prohibited by the order or otherwise criminal.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#178

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 9:22 PM UTC

tjgq wrote: post #172

buro9 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A restraining order is against any form of contact. You (and I) don't know the circumstances that led to the restraining order. There may have been violence, intimidation, harassment, abuse. This may even form part of a consistent pattern of abuse. The woman in this case may feel so traumatised by any reminder of her ex, or contact from him, that the act of receiving an email from him (on his behalf) may actually be…

Even though I don't know the specifics, I take issue with the very idea that merely contacting someone can constitute harassment. At the very least, the content of the message should be taken into account. Intent, more than raw actions taken out of context, is what determines wrongdoing. Note that I'm not suggesting that the actual law is being misinterpreted. I'm merely stating my personal views about the existence…

Merely contacting someone may violate the specific terms of a specific restraining order. Restraining orders very often, by design, restrain conduct that would not, absent the order, be prohibited by any law (they would generally be unnecessary if they didn't, since the law itself already restrains any conduct it prohibits.)

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#179

Post by parennoob » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 11:52 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #141

parennoob wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is kind of telling that people seem to have become inured enough to the extremely anti-male nature of such laws in the US that they are seriously discussing whether or not sending a man to jail over sending a Google+ invite to a woman is okay or not, saying "it depends upon the circumstances" and whatnot. Are you kidding me? Seriously, seeing "You got a Google+ invite from X" can cause you so much mental harm that…

The courts told him "no contact". This wasn't some frivilous law suit of "emotional harm", this was a judge saying "If you do this, you'll go to jail", and the person did the thing.

If courts can send you to jail for sending a service invite to someone (something that might easily be done by accident and completely unintentionally -- think LinkedIn's dark pattern for inviting friends), then people should be outraged by that.

Once upon a time, courts also used to send you to jail for marrying a person from a different race. That does not mean you should accept that decision unquestioningly.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#180

Post by parennoob » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 11:55 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #105

parennoob wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is kind of telling that people seem to have become inured enough to the extremely anti-male nature of such laws in the US that they are seriously discussing whether or not sending a man to jail over sending a Google+ invite to a woman is okay or not, saying "it depends upon the circumstances" and whatnot. Are you kidding me? Seriously, seeing "You got a Google+ invite from X" can cause you so much mental harm that…

The behaviour he was put in prison for was not "sending a G+ in invite" but "violating a court order".

Again, in several regimes, "court orders" have been served that are accepted as being human rights violations today. You don't accept a ruling as being correct just because it is a court order (not going any further to avoid invoking Godwin's Law.)