Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Can a Court Order You To Delete a Facebook Account?

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the seems-even-worse-than-no-internet-orders dept.

Facebook 761

First time accepted submitter jaymz666 writes "Can a court really order you to delete a Facebook account? When Asher initially appeared in court after the July 20 accident, the judge told her to delete her Facebook account, Kittinger said. Asher did not take it seriously, and was charged with contempt of court when the judge learned her Facebook page was still active. Seems like a big overreach."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Probably (5, Insightful)

Shajenko42 (627901) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399291)

A court can order your execution, I'd imagine they can order the deletion of an online account.

Re:Probably (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399387)

This is the USA we're talking about. They are more likely to feel outraged about being told to delete a Facebook account than state-sanctioned murder in cold blood.

In other news, gun proliferation is great (despite murder rates two orders of magnitude higher than civilised countries) but terminate a foetus and you're going to Hell.

Re:Probably (-1, Flamebait)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399471)

violent crimes in the USA are largely committed by certain few subcultures. don't judge the civilized people there by the savages

Re:Probably (4, Insightful)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399539)

Civilized people don't have the death penalty.

Re:Probably (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399619)

The death penalty is very civilized. It saves the tax payer thousands upon thousands of dollars. And frankly, I see it as a release. Given the option of life without parole and death, I will take death over an 8'x6' room. Keeping people in jail for life, now THAT is not civilized.

Re:Probably (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399673)

I agree with the sentiment totally even though i am against the death penalty. However that is not why people are given the death penalty.

Re:Probably (5, Insightful)

fredrated (639554) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399837)

Don't know much about the topic do you?
In fact, the automatic appeals, lawyer fees etc. involved in attempting to execute someone are well known to cost the state far more than simply keeping the perp in jail for life.

Re:Probably (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399635)

1) Life in prison without parole is the death penalty with no one willing to carry it out.

2) Animals that kill people are put down, people are just animals.

Re:Probably (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399679)

Nor do most states

Fixed it for you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399757)

Chickenshits don't have the death penalty.

Re:Probably (2)

jbrandv (96371) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399833)

Umm, civilised people don't require the death penalty. However we don't live in a completely civilised society.

Re:Probably (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399845)

Unless they do.

Re:Probably (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399855)

Ya , because repeatedly sodomizing someone is a confined space is so much more civilized.
If you have to remove someone from society from the greater good, killing is not necessarily worse or less humane then removing most of their freedoms.

Re:Probably (1)

BMOC (2478408) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399859)

A civilized people wouldn't need a death penalty. What a shame humans are less than civilized.

Re:Probably (4, Informative)

PraiseBob (1923958) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399613)

Yep, only 45% is part of the gun owning subculture.

Re:Probably (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399747)

Moron.

Re:Probably (1, Insightful)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399781)

Gun owners aren't the busculture, murderes are.

Re:Probably (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399637)

You mean like upset spouses/partners? Last I looked, that accounted for more than a quarter of the murders.

Re:Probably (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399793)

so what? what kind of people are those domestic violence cases? law abiding citizens, or 80% previously convicted criminals (which is the case). biggest chunk of those deaths are suicides, 60%, can't use those in argument against firearms.

Re:Probably (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399675)

First, your claim is dubious, and second, it's not a defense of the US in particular because any culture would claim exactly the same. Take the middle east. On the one hand we're shocked that Muslims are venting their anger over some nutcase propaganda film against our embassies and the other 99.5% of "westerners" who had nothing to do with it... yet what did I just say? "Muslims are venting." I did NOT say "0.5% of the Muslim fringe is venting," or whatever tiny fraction it is that are actually turning to violence. Can you spot the hypocrisy?

Re:Probably (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399523)

This is the USA we're talking about. They are more likely to feel outraged about being told to delete a Facebook account than state-sanctioned murder in cold blood.

In other news, gun proliferation is great (despite murder rates two orders of magnitude higher than civilised countries) but terminate a foetus and you're going to Hell.

USA: Speaking of Hell, in the words of organized religion, and all the offensiveness therein that has resulted in millions of lives lost...

...you started it.

Re:Probably (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399657)

Oh fuck off.

Re:Probably (5, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399701)

I have seen no data on gun proliferation that indicates that allowing guns into the hands of law-abiding citizens increases murder rates. It does increase death in assaults and home-invasions.

In places like Detroit or Washington DC or Baltimore City where legal gun ownership is basically non-existent, the huge amount of gun proliferation results in an armed criminal element and a disarmed citizenry. This creates a power dynamic whereby criminals have much more control and can be abusive. In truth, a lot of murders seem to be between criminals--they wind up shooting each other in gang turf arguments. They're actually afraid to pull their guns on private citizens, because the gun crime charge is like 10 times worse than the armed robbery charge (you can get 20 years for using a gun as a prop to threaten someone, whereas you may get thrown in jail for 2 years if you rob someone at knife point).

In places like Texas and Florida, murder rate is lower; however 'justifiable homicide' happens more. Basically when someone gets attacked, they shoot back. This means more shootings happen between crazies and less between bullies who think they're malendrine gangster mafioso. The insecure, up-tight morons are a hell of a lot more insecure when people can shoot back; a gunshot draws attention and when everyone in the area has guns and is afraid mostly of being shot but feels like they can shoot you first, they all come looking for you. At least, the theory is strong enough that people believe it and are hesitant to pull out a gun. It's lose-lose: if you don't shoot someone, they might have a gun, and might shoot you (this is fucking hard to do--why would you pull your gun out if the other guy ALREADY has a gun pointed at you?!); if you do shoot them, someone might come looking to see if everyone's alright, and they might find you, and they might have guns.

On top of all that, we have this whole culture thing going on. Look at the death penalty deterrent. In Texas, it's not much of a deterrent because you'll probably be dead before you make it to the court if you're planning on killing someone. In South Dakota, it's not much of a deterrent for unknown reasons. In Wisconsin, also for unknown reasons, when they abolished capital punishment they had murder rates quadrupal in 2 years, and re-instated it to get the murder rates back down.

The same principle applies to gun ownership: local cultural factors will affect how people behave with guns. If they're all insecure hicks who think only of themselves, anything off their property is not their responsibility (no one comes to help you) and anyone on their property needs killin'; if they're more communal, guns simply make people feel empowered and they believe they have a social responsibility, and they use their guns to protect others when other (bad people) bring out their guns to harm innocents. There's a huge gradient between, there's crazy people, people who don't care, people who are paranoid, and people who are just inborn heroes.

I don't think any country can call itself "civilized" when it decides the best way to handle society is to put the common man into a power-disadvantaged lower class. There are bullies and there are victims, and if we make all the common people victims then the bullies get to be kings by abusing people. We should be teaching men and women to fight and to not be afraid, not to cower in fear and leave everyone else to die if they can save themselves from harm. Humans are weak and useless, individual humans have no survival traits; we need to function in groups to live.

Re:Probably (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399783)

You're talking about a nation so pussified that a bunch of pissed off chavs RAN THE FUCKING COUNTRY while their police and law-abiding citizens just bent over and took it.

Re:Probably (3, Informative)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399409)

The court can only order your execution after you have been convicted.

The article is not clear, but it sounds like the demand was made prior to conviction.

Re:Probably (1)

Shajenko42 (627901) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399579)

Well, they can incarcerate you without convicting you.

Re:Probably (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399429)

Not in any civilised country, they can't.

Re:Probably (5, Interesting)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399601)

They did this to Kevin Mitnick. He was initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a landline telephone. Mitnick fought this decision in court, eventually winning a ruling in his favor, allowing him to access the Internet.

Seems like a similar type punishment. I bet it won't be hard for a good lawyer to change the ruling as it falls under unusual punishment. You could claim facebook is a requirement for getting a job (which in some fields it is), that it would put a undo burden on you, or even that there is no basis for the punishment and the judge is violating her freedom of speech.

The lady involved in this case is a horrible person, but her rights to let everyone know she's a horrible person should not be infringed.

Re:Probably (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399771)

Little does the judge know, you can never truly delete your account from there.

Re:Probably (2)

urulokion (597607) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399791)

Not really. A Facebook account is used for expressions of speech, so the first amendment comes into force. A court can no more order the deletion of a personal Facebook account than it can order the burning of letters or books that I have written. The courts in the US treat first amendment rights as so important, they one has standing to sue is a law or regulation could possibly be affected negatively. Usually one only has standing to bring a lawsuit only if they have been injure in someway by a law/regulation.

If this comtempt charge is appealed (and I do hope the girl does appeal), the appeals court will slap that judge silly for issuing such an order.

Re:Probably (1)

grenadeh (2734161) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399835)

Over half the states of Murca are allowed to use the death penalty - and it is reserved for extremely rare circumstances in homicide cases, like mass murderers and serial killers (same thing right). They can but it's extremely rare that they do when you look at how many actual court cases happen a year all over the place. I mean, the court is pretty much the king and you're the jester, whether you broke any law or not. You do what the hell they say unless the judge is a pothead and doesn't care, aka no such thing. Is it incredibly overbearing and inappropriate and should it be unconstitutional to order a person not accused of a real crime to delete their private property? Inarguably. I understand that there are criminals who kill people and steal shit and whatever - they don't deserve to be treated with respect. They deserve their American constitutional protections, those that apply to criminals and inmates, nothing more. But, for fake criminals - 1st or maybe 2nd time DUIs, disorderly conducts, people who forgot to make a bill payment, shit like that, it's absurd.

Sounds like a great idea for a federal law (0)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399297)

n/t

Why is she apologizing? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399307)

Never apologize to these scum. There are penalties in place, already on the books, to cover DUI charges. Sentence this woman to her time or fines and let it go at that. Trying to micromanage people's lives is what the system now does, judges and the whole corrupt group of them on a sociopathic power trip.
 
Never bow to these megalomaniacs.

Re:Why is she apologizing? (5, Informative)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399419)

It was a condition of her release. If she did not wish to comply with the conditions, her jail time would have been higher and/or she would have had greater fines.

If the judge offers something like this up, you take it. It beats spending more time in jail. But you had better follow through. At this level of the court system, the judges are your neighbors. They want the same things you do, a safe community. They are not ivory tower federal judges.

Re:Why is she apologizing? (5, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399847)

I can't disagree with the logic, but something still stinks about how deeply into one's personal life and activities a judge can go.

Hypothetical extreme example: If you met a girl at a bar, went to bed with her, only to discover later (via arrest) that she was jailbait, and a judge demanded that you get a castration in order to avoid 10-15 years in prison, would you do it? Many (I daresay most) would, while others would not.

Thing is, it's not that it gets you out of jail faster - it's that the punishment itself is unusual, which is constitutionally out-of-bounds. In other words, the judge had no constitutional right or authority to order (let alone enforce) such a thing as punishment.

One other bit: I submit that local judges, far more than state/federal ones, are more prone to viciousness, petty abuses, and vindictiveness - especially in more rural areas, where there is no competition and/or chance of losing one's job to a misconduct charge. If there's going to be judicial abuse, odds are good that it'll happen on the lower levels far easier than the upper ones.

Re:Why is she apologizing? (1)

Beavertank (1178717) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399425)

Yes, of course. Except the few exceptions to the rule (judges who are actually on a power trip) prove nothing... except that in any group of people who achieve power some of them will misuse it. Have fun with that paranoid lifestyle, though. The tin-foil hats are in aisle 5.

Re:Why is she apologizing? (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399545)

Or, alternately, don't commit a DUI at all, and definitely don't then go on to Facebook and go “My dumb bass got a DUI and I hit a car ... LOL”.

But sure, you show those little Napoleons who is boss. All they can do is throw you in jail for... well... forever because you can be jailed indefinitely for contempt of court. I imagine we will be more than happy to throw ourselves on our swords for the sanctity of Facebook access.

Erased from existence (2)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399309)

Never mind you being forced to delete an account, will Facebook wipe an account of their servers?

Re:Erased from existence (2)

ifrag (984323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399777)

Never mind you being forced to delete an account, will Facebook wipe an account of their servers?

I'd doubt it. Probably like a version control system, nothing is ever really gone or lost. On the outside you only see trunk / latest rev, it will look gone at least.

overreach (3, Interesting)

Danathar (267989) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399313)

It's like constitutionality and the supreme court. What the court says is constitutional IS constitutional, regardless of what anybody else thinks.

The same applies here (except for the fact that a higher court can say otherwise).

Re:overreach (4, Insightful)

phlinn (819946) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399413)

That's not actually true, although the legal system treats it as such. Constitutional means compatible with the US Constitution. Some things flatly aren't, even if the court says otherwise.

Re:overreach (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399547)

I have Citizen's United on line 1.

Re:overreach (0, Troll)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399621)

That's not actually true, although the legal system treats it as such. Constitutional means compatible with the US Constitution. Some things flatly aren't, even if the court says otherwise.

You don't decide that, the Supreme Court does. Who says the Supreme Court decides that? The Constitution.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court

So if you want to "overrule" the Supreme Court because the law is not compatible with the constitution, you too is in violation of constitution. Better hope two wrongs make a right...

Re:overreach (5, Informative)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399743)

That's not actually true, although the legal system treats it as such. Constitutional means compatible with the US Constitution. Some things flatly aren't, even if the court says otherwise.

You don't decide that, the Supreme Court does. Who says the Supreme Court decides that? The Constitution.

Well... not exactly. The Supreme Court says the Supreme Court decides that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison [wikipedia.org]

Re:overreach (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399795)

If the constitution says "It is permissible to drink water under all circumstances", and the supreme court says "drinking water is unconstitutional", legally they are right, but factually they remain wrong.

Stupid question .. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399319)

Of course, a court can order you to do anything -- and if it's upheld on appeal then you MUST comply.

Re:Stupid question .. (3, Insightful)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399451)

But in this case the court's decision is probably in violation to the first amendment and would be over turned by a federal court (or the USSC). Her facebook comment is within her rights to free speech even if in poor taste.

Re:Stupid question .. (1)

esme (17526) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399807)

the court can take away your life, proprty, freedom of movement & association, right to vote, etc. there is no reason speech related to the crime committed should be any different.

Re:Stupid question .. (1, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399871)

With due process.

There was no due process here, at least none I saw. Just a judge going, "Take it down."

DUI, collision, no jail time? (5, Insightful)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399323)

She got off easy, after a DUI collision she should be in jail for a year or two.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399389)

Don't worry, in many parts of the US, loss of one's driving license is equivalent to house arrest.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399519)

Only because you're too much of a pussy to walk a few blocks and ride public transportation.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time? (1)

hazah (807503) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399627)

I don't think you comperhand what you are saying. A few blocks could verywell be half a day's walk.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time? (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399661)

This is the US we're talking about. Even in cities where there is mass transit, half the time it's terrible. For example, Atlanta doesn't so much have a train system as it has a pathetic excuse for one.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time? (5, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399715)

You do realize that for most of the US, the nearest public transportation is several days walk?

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399745)

Try that in a city with huge urban sprawl like the Phoenix Metro area. It can take an hour+ to drive from end to end, and thats going 75MPH on a single highway. Public transportation is effectively impossible to make useful outside the Downtown zone.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time? (1)

karmawarrior (311177) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399755)

In most parts of the country, it's illegal for developers to build homes and businesses in close enough proximity that public transportation and walking are viable options.

Bizarrely, it's the libertarians that are usually behind these laws, as nothing says freedom more than being forced to choose a particular form of transportation...

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399705)

no cabs, no friends, no neighbors, no family, no horse, no bicycle. There are very few people who are truly confined to their houses without a drivers license. It's not a right, it's a 4000 lb weapon you routinely aim at other people.

Re:DUI, collision, no jail time? (0)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399527)

LOL!

You can't delete a Facebook account? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399331)

Last I checked, it wasn't possible to delete a facebook account. You can only deactivate them. I realise it's a technicality, but in a system based upon technicalities, it could serve to be an adequate defence?

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account? (4, Interesting)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399427)

I presume they would be satisfied with deactivation, or indeed, with her simply not using it. In TFA, it says they threw her in the can because she literally posted "LOL" about her DUI on FB after having been instructed to not use FB and the families of her victims noticed it. Presumably, even its continued existence on the Internet was not a problem as long as she wasn't communicating with it.

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account? (5, Informative)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399477)

Of course you can.

http://www.wikihow.com/Permanently-Delete-a-Facebook-Account [wikihow.com]

I did it a year ago and have never looked back

Of course, whether or not FB actually deletes your data is another matter.

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account? (2, Funny)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399587)

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Sheesh... Don't get so melodramatic. Thats just someone permanently deleting their FB account.

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account? (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399655)

You can delete your account. Deactivate is the method facebook wants you to use. They keep all your data and can easily bring your account back to life when you 'change your mind'. If you go the delete route, they claim to delete your data, but more importantly, you can never use that email address again to open a facebook account.

Deletion is facebook suicide, and it's why I went that route when I deleted mine. I don't see myself getting a new email address in the near future, and I can never use my current one to open a facebook account.

Re:You can't delete a Facebook account? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399867)

If they have deleted all your information, then how do they know to deny profile creation to your email address?

"Contempt of court" is pretty powerful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399337)

If you don't do what the judge says, you're in big trouble.
Is deleting a Facebook account really that big a deal?

Re:"Contempt of court" is pretty powerful (0)

N1AK (864906) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399459)

The big deal is that a court is ordering the deletion of an account which they have no business doing. I'd think it was bad enough if the judge ordered her not to use Facebook, let alone asking her to delete her account. I could imagine in some cases, for example stalking, a ban on using a system would be justified. I could also imagine that requiring the deletion of a specific post, or potentially account created to cause offence, could be targetted. This is not one of those situations.

Re:"Contempt of court" is pretty powerful (1)

N1AK (864906) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399733)

Sorry, I missed a detail. Although she did post something that caused offence I don't think it came anywhere near justifying that either a post or account be deleted. There seems to be a lack of clarity over what was actually ordered and when in the coverage so far. The judge likely didn't order her to 'delete' her facebook account for shits and giggles, and some people are saying the original order related to content not the entire account.

I have mod points... (1, Funny)

dtmancom (925636) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399353)

How do I mod the judge a Troll?

Delete Facebook.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399357)

Did they also hit the gym?

Finally! (1)

sir_eccles (1235902) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399369)

I had always wondered what "LOL" meant.

Re:Finally! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399823)

I always thought it meant "lots of love". As in, "your grandfather died today, LOL"

I don't get it. (2)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399399)

A judge ordering a defendant to delete evidence of a crime... Well, I must say that's a new one for me.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399735)

How is this evidence of a crime?

Re:I don't get it. (2)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399853)

A post indicating that "I'm drunk and just crashed into a car LOL" is not evidence of a crime?

Not only is it evidence of the DUI, it's evidence that the defendant posted the "LOL" post. The judge is ordering the deletion of evidence which was used to justify the order itself.

Taunting (5, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399401)

When you taunt the victims of your drunk driving accident with a flippant post, I am glad a judge can make you take it down, or even your whole FB account if you've shown that you're not responsible enough to use it wisely. If the judge can put you in jail I don't see why it's worse if he tells you to stay off of FB.

FB Comparable to the Telephone .... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399577)

Unfortunately, FaceBook is used as a communication tool in much the same way the telephone is. People track and communicate with their friends, co-workers, and business associates using FaceBook. So the judge's order is very much like ordering someone (who makes prank calls) to cancel their home and cell phone service. Canceling either one's phone service or FaceBook account can have significantly detrimental affects to a person's livelihood.

On the other hand, if the judge would just be patient, the individual's FaceBook account will come down on its own given that FaceBook stock keeps tanking and they've not been able to properly monetize FaceBook through ads which consistently under-perform.

Re:FB Comparable to the Telephone .... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399685)

This is Facebook, not e-mail, your Internet connection, or your telephone service. If you are completely dependant on the services of one social media platform you really should really rethink the way you live your life.

Re:Taunting (2)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399651)

Turn the fake outrage meter down a few notches, she may be guilty of being a dumbass but how did she taunt the victims?
Was the post directed at them?
Lets pretend like the message was intended for the victims is "My dumb bass got a DUI and I hit a carLOL" even considered taunting?

Re:Taunting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399665)

When you taunt the victims of your drunk driving accident with a flippant post, I am glad a judge can make you take it down, or even your whole FB account if you've shown that you're not responsible enough to use it wisely. If the judge can put you in jail I don't see why it's worse if he tells you to stay off of FB.

It's not harder. It's unenforceable.

(click...click..)...(creates new account 6 months from now under new nickname)...

Yeah, real hard "lesson" taught there.

Judge should have exercised proper authority here and used the power of incarceration instead. Brash arrogance needs to be met with equal impact, not a slap on the wrist. She might actually use her brain next time and think twice, after thinking back on that time in lockdown.

Re:Taunting (4, Insightful)

hazah (807503) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399677)

Except there was no actual taunt. Carelessness at best. And a judge being able to do this to anyone is absolutely horrifying.

Re:Taunting (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399731)

And I think you're a dumbass and somebody should have sex with your sister in your bed so we can all laugh at you.

Do I go to jail now?

Re:Taunting (5, Interesting)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399769)

Because being put in jail for a crime doesn't violate your freedom of speech. Being forced to delete your facebook posts/account does.

If it was facebook who deleted her account, that would be ok with me. It's up to them to decide what kind of speech they want on their servers. But the government has no right to moderate speech unless it is causing a immediate and local danger (fire in a theater). This is the same with the video causing all that trouble in the middle east. Yes, the government could take it down, but doing so violates the core principle of this country.

People look at idiots spewing hate as a bad thing. I look at it as a nice big poster that helps me separate out the idiots from the people worth spending my time with. In any case get a double dose of information. For example, with that anti-muslim video you learn that there are a few people in america who are douche bags and you learn that there are many many more 'muslims' in the middle east who are out of control, immoral, violent, murders just looking for excuses to bring their hate to the rest of the world. In the case of this ladies facebook post, you learn she is immature, immoral, and non-repentant. Basically, she's a horrible person. So if I was ever to meet her, I'd know to stay clear.

Re:Taunting (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399789)

When you taunt the victims of your drunk driving accident with a flippant post, I am glad a judge can make you take it down

You can taunt your victims in person. You can taunt your victims by mail. You can taunt your victims by phone. You can taunt your victims via press conference (if the press considers you important enough to give you an audience). You can taunt your victims with frickin' sky-writing for all it matters.

And yes, you can taunt your victims on Facebook.

The fact that she chose to do it at all makes her an ass, but it doesn't take away her first amendment right to act like an ass.


That said - She may have agreed to delete her account as a condition of a lighter sentence. Personally, I have a problem with games like that in general, but since it happens, and she took the deal, she damned well better hold up her side if she wants to remain on the outside of a cage.

Maybe it was a condition of release? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399405)

I'm going to just hope that she AGREED to deactivate her FB account as part of some agreement to be released.

If so, then I'm having a hard time caring.

But I did delete it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399455)

"And then remade an account with the same name and readded all my friends and reposted everything I had on my old account."
(Yes I realize this is both unlikely and impossible due to timestamps, shut up D:)

Condition of release (5, Informative)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399467)

Sounds like she agreed to get off facebook as part of deal for less jail time. Other deals you might make with the judge. "Less time in exchange for serving in the military", "Less time in exchange for community service", "Less time in exchange for entering into rehab", "Less time with an agreement to avoid certain people"
It is still kinda of awful. Judges should avoid restricting peoples first amendment rights.

Re:Condition of release (3, Interesting)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399611)

The rather lightweight description in TFA (stupid sound-bite TV journalism) makes it sound like the order to "delete" her FB account was at her first court appearance (arraignment?). I'm not sure if there was a specific condition to the judge's order (like a bail condition), or if the judge just issued an order cold and expected it to stick.

However, it's not like there isn't precedent for a judge to issue an order supressing freedom of speech [wikipedia.org] early in a court proceeding. The rationale may be completely different, but the mechanism is basically the same.

Re:Condition of release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399709)

When you get convicted of a crime, you lose your right of freedom (freedom to go where you want to aka jail) so losing your facebook rights is perfectly fine as it's barely affects your ability to speak freely (there are plently of other ways). This is a criminal case (dui+several other things), not a civil case.

Limitations (1)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399533)

The judge can, during the proceedings, probably do nearly anything he likes. However, once punishment is decided, I don't think he can do anything else. I'm 99% sure he can't permanently ban you from Facebook forever. She should have just disabled her account, then re-activated it when sentencing was complete.

She could have deleted it and asked for a restore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399575)

Complied with order, ask for restore, back online.

Judge didn't tell her she couldn't make a new one, or restore the current one, just to delete it.

Idiot judge.

Captcha appropriate - Despots

in nazi germany (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399595)

Yes.

Re:in nazi germany (1)

jameshofo (1454841) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399863)

It does suck that she's such a b**** but that doesn't mean we have to circumvent the first amendment for her foolishness. It would be more appropriate to ask facebook to suspend her account, they aren't obligated to give her the platform to spread her "free speech".

You can remove one of these? (1)

biggaijin (126513) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399717)

I think the judge's order should include instructions on how to remove a Facebook page. I tried to delete mine once, and couldn't find a way to make it go away completely. I had to settle for removing all the personal info from it....

A Bit Too Far (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399737)

At first, I thought this was part of a plea deal. Shut down your Facebook account and do some other things and get your sentence reduced. However, it actually sounds like she went before the judge and he just said "Shut down your Facebook account." Now, ordering her not to post on Facebook for the duration of the trial, I could see. Given her posting a "lol" comment about her car crash, I'd say banning her from social media until the trial was over would be appropriate. Once the sentence came in, she might even face a more permanent (or at least longer) ban. But telling her right off the bat to delete her Facebook account seems like it goes a bit too far.

That said, it's stupid to just ignore a judge's orders. This person is going to decide your fate and has the power to make your life miserable. You can have your lawyer protest the order. Perhaps he might even find some way to change the judge's mind. However, you don't just ignore it outright and then act surprised when the judge comes down hard on you.

A court can order you to do almost anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399753)

The State has every right to deprive you of your rights through due process. A court can compel you to do just about anything, because the judicial process is due process.

About the only saving grace is the 8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. But, deleting your Facebook account certainly wouldn't fall under the scope of this protection.

Who judges the judges? (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399765)

In America (and many other countries), judges get to be petty tyrants with few restrictions or consequences for rulings no matter how nutbar they may be.

odd (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399803)

Why was the order issued to her and not ot Facebook?

Last time I tried to delete a facebook account Facebook openly defied my request, so this order may well be impossible to obey.

Facebook sucks. They hold your data hostage and flat out refuse to let go of it.

Site constraints (2, Insightful)

dmomo (256005) | more than 2 years ago | (#41399813)

What if the site did not allow for account deletion? Facebook arguably doesn't allow this. Maybe you can deactivate, but never delete. Even if it did allow deletion, what if it were some other site that did not allow it. How could the judge order something that isn't (easily) possible?

Now, suppose the judge orders you to give your password, but the site TOS forbids you from giving out the password? Can a judge order you to violate a TOS?

She did not get it off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41399861)

“Apparently it was a condition, and they said she did not get it off [urbandictionary.com] , and so they charged her with contempt of court,” Kittinger told ABC News.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?