I like the idea of the radio call-in; I would tend to agree that you would unlikely be in breach per the law, and per norms because one cannot reasonably expect all (or even many) listeners to know who will be on the show. The same where one was presenting oneself and the person with the order accidentally or randomly came across one. Where there is intent to engage with whomever you have the order, then I would agree that you’re likely crossing the line. I guess I’m seeing ‘engaging’ (through this thinkers) as the act of intentionally surveying/cyber-stalking the person whom you are prevented from coming near.

I’m not aware of any case law around this, but I’m also definitely not a lawyer – I’m trying to puzzle out where I think this ought to fall, on the conditions of normativity, and then put it aside for later research that will certainly entail looking at present case law (or asking colleagues who are familiar with this area of the law to guide me *grin*)

But then I comment. And you know its me (either through deduction or by my declaration). Because I have engaged you directly, I may be violating the terms or the intent of the order.

Take a radio call-in show for the closest example. You are a guest, not even the “famous” host. I listen to the show, but I doubt that would violate the terms.

But if I call in to question you the guest, I am likely crossing the line.

…

It could be argued that your blog, or Facebook page, or whatever, is akin to your home. Even though the street is public, I can be prevented from traversing that public thoroughfare. But all other people are free to visit when they wish (including annoying door-to-door salesmen, but I digress). But I think the parallels to other forms of media (could I not buy a book you published?) are more relevant. I wonder if there’s any case law on the books already as a guide?

I guess that I am thinking of ‘personal’ rather than ‘business’ websites – I’m perhaps incorrectly seeing a difference from where a person blogs about their life and their professional obligations as a talk show host (e.g. Oprah). With this, perhaps not helpful distinction, I see that ‘stalking’ and ‘following’ someone has moved beyond just a physical pursuit and entered a digital space; when I put myself into the ‘physical’ public sphere, the restraining order is meant to prevent someone from intruding on me in that space. Where they accidentally violate the sphere of protection, they are typically obligated to remove themselves. Why shouldn’t a similar process be expected online; if you know that I blog personal information at a particular location then you are expected to avoid touching on that space, as you would being around someone in a physical domain.

I guess that I’m not seeing a need for ‘greater protection’ online than in the physical world but actually see there being a similarity in degrees of privacy being accorded. At the same time, I feel that I’m doing something snakey in my argument, and that I’m not fully detecting just yet. I think that Nissembaum’s argument can be transposed to physical spaces, with similar conclusion, as can Solove’s – neither necessarily would offer ‘stronger’ protections online than in a physical space, at least as I’m reading them right now.

When putting yourself in the public sphere, why does one medium need greater privacy than another?