4 ms·

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, i

by buro9 13y ago

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 deeply upsetting and disturbing. It may undo any efforts she has put in place to move on with her life, and restore her to the place of being abused. If a court has put in place a restraining order then there is no acceptable basis for the ex to contact her. Including whether that contact is via an automated email on his behalf. I'm with the v̶i̶c̶t̶i̶m̶ court on this. Someone is to blame, and the bar isn't too low. I do think that a decision like this will cause Google to evaluate the impact of any automated emails. I also think that if you get a restraining order against you it's not enough to lazily avoid contact with the other person, you should proactively ensure that you do not contact the other person... so purge your address book if need be, the court has made it your responsibility to not contact the other person.

rjknight 13y ago
There is no "with the victim" here though. I mean, morally speaking, we are all with the victim - human decency alone demands that we have sympathy for their predicament, which is why we have things like restraining orders in the first place. But the enforcement of the order is done by the police and the state, and the state is in a position to imprison someone for an act which they did not commit, which seems to me to be unfair. If Google carries out automated actions on behalf of its users, without their knowledge or permission and in a way that they cannot reasonably predict or prevent, then it seems unjust to punish the user. You can say that the person should have removed the victim from their contacts, but it's not even obvious that they would have known that the victim was on their contact list (basically, anyone you ever email gets added to it), and even if they did know, they would have no particular reason to assume that Google would contact this person automatically.
- buro9 13y ago
  I've edited my post. I side with the court (which is choosing to favour the person who asked for the restraining order). It's not been proven that Google did send an automated email. The only thing the court does know is that an email was sent, and it was "from" the person who is subject to the restraining order. If Google did send an automated email (which is unclear), then lawyers should be updating their advice to the subjects of restraining orders to ensure that their contact lists are purged appropriately.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    The question is where is the line drawn between contacting a person and a third party or script of some sort contacting the same person ostensibly on their behalf. For another example a person working in telemarketing is usually given a list of numbers to call which are automatically dialed by the phone system so therefor has no direct control over who they "contact". The usual standard for a court would be the intent of the alleged perpetrator (IANAL etc).
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      I would think it would be either "intentionally" or "knowingly." In other words if you sent the email intending to contact the other person that's pretty clearly there. I would suspect at least some states would draw the line at "knew or should have known" when you hit send. But "couldn't reasonably have known" is different. If Google is, for example, looking at your past email contacts and sending invites out on your behalf then that is so far beyond "knew or should have known" that I can't imagine it applying.
  - ithkuil 13y ago
    > If Google did send an automated email (which is unclear), then lawyers should be updating their advice to the subjects of restraining orders to ensure that their contact lists are purged appropriately. so basically you are saying that when something in the law is not clear, it's the job of the lawyers to make it sure they give proper advice to the next person coming into that situation, while the unlucky first person just has to face consequences?
BitMastro 13y ago
Slightly unrelated, but how does a restraining order behaves when dealing with a broadcast? For example, if the attacker buys an ad on a newspaper or tv and says something without addressing the victim specifically, is it against the law?
narag 13y ago
Maybe I don't understand correctly the legal terms but this: You (and I) don't know the circumstances that led to the restraining order. ... doesn't seem to be very consistent with this: I'm with the victim on this. Isn't it possible for a court to issue mutual restraint orders? Or maybe the order is a preventive measure for alledged facts that are still to be evaluated. We don't know what happened to motivate the order. We know who the victim is here: the guy that got jailed. Also, I don't think it's very reasonable to expect most users to know how to purge personal information from sites, it's a recurring theme over here.
einhverfr 13y ago
I don't know if the bar is too low, since crimes have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jailing someone here seems rather excessive though. Keep in mind I find this no contact thing rather weird. Of course I spent most of my adult life in small towns in the US, where such a broad order would be met with "no contact? In a town of 3000 people? Are you saying he has to move out of town?" I have also known people who were heavily threatened by exes and opted to just disappear for a while. The reason is that if you are really in danger, then the last thing you want is to tell the target of the order where to avoid (because that's where you will be). Due notice (a Constitutional requirement) makes restraining orders useless against someone dangerous enough.
tjgq 13y ago
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.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  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.)
dragonwriter 13y ago
> 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 http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dv110.pdf

by buro9 13y ago

rjknight 13y ago

There is no "with the victim" here though. I mean, morally speaking, we are all with the victim - human decency alone demands that we have sympathy for their predicament, which is why we have things like restraining orders in the first place. But the enforcement of the order is done by the police and the state, and the state is in a position to imprison someone for an act which they did not commit, which seems to me to be unfair. If Google carries out automated actions on behalf of its users, without their knowledge or permission and in a way that they cannot reasonably predict or prevent, then it seems unjust to punish the user. You can say that the person should have removed the victim from their contacts, but it's not even obvious that they would have known that the victim was on their contact list (basically, anyone you ever email gets added to it), and even if they did know, they would have no particular reason to assume that Google would contact this person automatically.

buro9 13y ago
I've edited my post. I side with the court (which is choosing to favour the person who asked for the restraining order). It's not been proven that Google did send an automated email. The only thing the court does know is that an email was sent, and it was "from" the person who is subject to the restraining order. If Google did send an automated email (which is unclear), then lawyers should be updating their advice to the subjects of restraining orders to ensure that their contact lists are purged appropriately.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  The question is where is the line drawn between contacting a person and a third party or script of some sort contacting the same person ostensibly on their behalf. For another example a person working in telemarketing is usually given a list of numbers to call which are automatically dialed by the phone system so therefor has no direct control over who they "contact". The usual standard for a court would be the intent of the alleged perpetrator (IANAL etc).
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    I would think it would be either "intentionally" or "knowingly." In other words if you sent the email intending to contact the other person that's pretty clearly there. I would suspect at least some states would draw the line at "knew or should have known" when you hit send. But "couldn't reasonably have known" is different. If Google is, for example, looking at your past email contacts and sending invites out on your behalf then that is so far beyond "knew or should have known" that I can't imagine it applying.
- ithkuil 13y ago
  > If Google did send an automated email (which is unclear), then lawyers should be updating their advice to the subjects of restraining orders to ensure that their contact lists are purged appropriately. so basically you are saying that when something in the law is not clear, it's the job of the lawyers to make it sure they give proper advice to the next person coming into that situation, while the unlucky first person just has to face consequences?

BitMastro 13y ago

Slightly unrelated, but how does a restraining order behaves when dealing with a broadcast? For example, if the attacker buys an ad on a newspaper or tv and says something without addressing the victim specifically, is it against the law?

narag 13y ago

Maybe I don't understand correctly the legal terms but this: You (and I) don't know the circumstances that led to the restraining order. ... doesn't seem to be very consistent with this: I'm with the victim on this. Isn't it possible for a court to issue mutual restraint orders? Or maybe the order is a preventive measure for alledged facts that are still to be evaluated. We don't know what happened to motivate the order. We know who the victim is here: the guy that got jailed. Also, I don't think it's very reasonable to expect most users to know how to purge personal information from sites, it's a recurring theme over here.

einhverfr 13y ago

I don't know if the bar is too low, since crimes have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jailing someone here seems rather excessive though. Keep in mind I find this no contact thing rather weird. Of course I spent most of my adult life in small towns in the US, where such a broad order would be met with "no contact? In a town of 3000 people? Are you saying he has to move out of town?" I have also known people who were heavily threatened by exes and opted to just disappear for a while. The reason is that if you are really in danger, then the last thing you want is to tell the target of the order where to avoid (because that's where you will be). Due notice (a Constitutional requirement) makes restraining orders useless against someone dangerous enough.

tjgq 13y ago

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.

dragonwriter 13y ago
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.)

dragonwriter 13y ago

> 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 http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dv110.pdf