5 ms·

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

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..."

DanBC 13y ago
The behaviour he was put in prison for was not "sending a G+ in invite" but "violating a court order".
- parennoob 13y ago
  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.)
  - DanBC 13y ago
    You either obey the court order while you appeal it and fight the injustice. Or you disobey the court order and go to jail and appeal the court order and fight the injustice. But while the order stands it will be enforced by the apperatus of the law.
rmc 13y ago
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.
- parennoob 13y ago
  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.
  - rmc 13y ago
    Agreed that if Google automatically sent the invite then that means that the accused didn't send it, and hence didn't break the law. However we don't know, in this case, if that's the case. If he did sent the invite, then he broke the order
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Thank you. I'm also appalled by the complete lack of empathy and the bitter pragmatism here. If you're going to participate in social media, there's certain rules of etiquette and responsibilities to follow (not like anyone does, but anyway). Large companies will resort to malicious and unethical features in order to gain advantages. Fact of life. You would think our interconnected society would be aware of this, but I guess it's beyond the average consumer of social media.

DanBC 13y ago

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

parennoob 13y ago
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.)
- DanBC 13y ago
  You either obey the court order while you appeal it and fight the injustice. Or you disobey the court order and go to jail and appeal the court order and fight the injustice. But while the order stands it will be enforced by the apperatus of the law.

rmc 13y ago

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.

parennoob 13y ago
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.
- rmc 13y ago
  Agreed that if Google automatically sent the invite then that means that the accused didn't send it, and hence didn't break the law. However we don't know, in this case, if that's the case. If he did sent the invite, then he broke the order

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

Thank you. I'm also appalled by the complete lack of empathy and the bitter pragmatism here. If you're going to participate in social media, there's certain rules of etiquette and responsibilities to follow (not like anyone does, but anyway). Large companies will resort to malicious and unethical features in order to gain advantages. Fact of life. You would think our interconnected society would be aware of this, but I guess it's beyond the average consumer of social media.