Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google+ invite lands man in jail

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 203 posts

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#71

Post by marcosdumay »

Joeboy wrote: post #54

It seems reasonable to me that courts should be able to issue temporary restraining orders without requiring much evidence, as long as it's generally understood that that's what happened. The problem here seems to be that the man was held accountable for a breach of such an order that was both minimal and unintentional. I would guess that the law takes this possibility into account, and the police involved probably s…

Completely agree. I'm astonished that somebody got a restraining order against sending normal (as oposed to threatening or something like that) email.

If he phoned a radio station while she was listenning it, would he also go to jail?

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#72

Post by X4 »

Does that only apply to the USA and UK? That is almost like "thought crime", when you look dangerous, or have similarity with someone portrayed in the media as the "bad guy". Can a person "feeling" intimidated by your look or presence sue you too? That would be ridiculous and put everyone into constant pressure to "look normal" I think.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#73

Post by leephillips »

Joeboy wrote: post #54

It seems reasonable to me that courts should be able to issue temporary restraining orders without requiring much evidence, as long as it's generally understood that that's what happened. The problem here seems to be that the man was held accountable for a breach of such an order that was both minimal and unintentional. I would guess that the law takes this possibility into account, and the police involved probably s…

In some states the order will curtail your right to purchase a firearm or, possibly, to exercise other 2nd amendment rights. Depending on your circumstances, this might endanger your life. That the courts can eliminate some of a citizen's rights based on an unsupported complaint with no due process might not be considered reasonable by everybody.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#74

Post by cdash »

einhverfr wrote: post #30
tluyben2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I presume that as well; I hope someone here has experience with that and can tell how hard it is? Because I just had that 'wow!' experience ; it feels like they hand them out at the police station to anyone asking :) I know they are not, but some 'actual', non media enlarged information would be great!

IIRC the process is something like this (disclaimer, this is secondhand from listening to lawyers and I have no experience with the process): 1. Alleged victim goes to judge, gets temporary restraining order on essentially no evidence. This is supposed to be a stop-gap while further process is going on. 2. Alleged perpetrator is notified and a court date set to discuss whether the restraining order is appropriate. Te…

If the situation is life-threatening, how would a restraining order prevent it?

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#75

Post by parennoob »

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…

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 you have to send another human being to jail? In a sane world, this would invite investigation for possible human rights violations. As it goes in the USA today, apparently people are shrugging their shoulders and saying "Well, you know, he did send her a Google+ invite..."

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#76

Post by Jare »

icebraining wrote: post #57
jhgg wrote: post #35

I wouldn't be surprised if she mistook the "People you may know" notification for an from someone add them to your circles on G+.

Well, she and the cops, since she "went down to the local police station with a print-out of the invitation".

I don't think many people can understand half of what Google's UIs are trying to do or say anymore, even while we interact and use them. I wouldn't expect your local cops to be more knowledgeable from a printout.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#77

Post by Joeboy »

adekok wrote: post #70
Joeboy wrote: post #54

It seems reasonable to me that courts should be able to issue temporary restraining orders without requiring much evidence, as long as it's generally understood that that's what happened. The problem here seems to be that the man was held accountable for a breach of such an order that was both minimal and unintentional. I would guess that the law takes this possibility into account, and the police involved probably s…

> It seems reasonable to me that courts should be able to issue temporary restraining orders without requiring much evidence, as long as it's generally understood that that's what happened. The potential for abuse is high. The actual abuse is high. "My partner hit me!" And he's out. The courts are required to have a hearing within 30 days. Call the court and ask for that, and you'll be laughed at. 6 months later, the…

> The potential for abuse is high. The actual abuse is high.

And that is terrible, but I am not necessarily sure it is net terrible. To decide that, we would need to compare it with the terribleness of having no expedient legal recourse when you reasonably fear a partner might harass, assault or kill you. I've no doubt the implementation details suck though.

Ninja edit: Words.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#78

Post by Joeboy »

leephillips wrote: post #73
Joeboy wrote: post #54

It seems reasonable to me that courts should be able to issue temporary restraining orders without requiring much evidence, as long as it's generally understood that that's what happened. The problem here seems to be that the man was held accountable for a breach of such an order that was both minimal and unintentional. I would guess that the law takes this possibility into account, and the police involved probably s…

In some states the order will curtail your right to purchase a firearm or, possibly, to exercise other 2nd amendment rights. Depending on your circumstances, this might endanger your life. That the courts can eliminate some of a citizen's rights based on an unsupported complaint with no due process might not be considered reasonable by everybody.

I'm not from the US, so that concern sounds bizarre to me.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#79

Post by hyperpape »

chillingeffect wrote: post #36
ZoFreX wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused as to why you are under the impression that restraining orders are 'normal', or that they hand them out to anyone asking, based on a single data point of one person getting one restraining order?

There are 2 to 3 million of them handed out each year [1]. If not "normal," that's certainly _common_. There is no proof or evidence required to issue one. The judge only reads a description of events. It is not required for the restrained party to be there to defend or present counter-evidence. It's simply a 5-10 minute meeting between a judge and a person who alleges "fear" or "emotional harm." Exact laws vary from…

The 2-3 million figure is based on an _estimate_ by http://www.mediaradar.org/ and http://www.acfc.org/, which are not neutral sources (though this does not mean that they are wrong). The one clear piece of evidence cited is ~38,000 orders for Pennsylvania, which comprises 4% of the US population.

Edit: My initial comment understated the issue. Media Radar states that women are twice as likely to engage in unidirectional (unreciprocated) violence towards their partners are men. While domestic violence against men is real and subject to a lot of shame and silence, this estimate seems insane: I have previously seen figures like 10% of domestic violence stemming from women.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#80

Post by GFischer »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #33
rjknight wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it sounds unlikely, then there's probably more to the story. We don't know what happened between them that caused a judge to believe the order to be necessary, but I presume that such orders are not given lightly.

They are given lightly. For example, a woman in Santa Fe got a restraining order after a "breakup" with David Letterman. He was ordered to stop communicating with her via code words on his show. Kelsey Grammar was also involved somehow. http://www.volokh.com/files/lettermanapp.pdf http://www.volokh.com/files/lettermantro.pdf (It was later overturned on the grounds that the Santa Fe court didn't have jurisdiction over…

Wow. Thanks for sharing those links. How bizarre.
Post reply on HN