# Court Rules Against Socks **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 11, 2017, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-rules-against-socks/776887 "2017-01-11T18:49:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-rules-against-socks/776887/1 "2017-01-11T18:49:34Z")
[Found this on Volokh today](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/10/injunction-against-critical-sock-puppetry/?utm_term=.371d7f14f191), though the opinion is from 2014. A Florida district court found that creating sock puppets is an action that can be enjoined. From the opinion: > [@](#): > > 1. Pursuant to the evidence presented, the Court finds that Defendants created a false impression of a group of negative reviewers about the Plaintiffs when in fact, there is no such group of negative reviewers-only the Defendants. > > 2. The Court finds that the act of falsifying multiple identities is the conduct to be enjoined. And from the article: > [@](#): > > Kathy Davis had admitted in discovery to using four separate names in her posts, Cheyanna, Kayla, Kathy D., and William P. (plus an email address); one post, for instance, written under the name Kathy D., began with “I agree totally with William P’s review.” Even the Florida court bans socks. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-rules-against-socks/776887/2 "2017-01-12T01:06:27Z")
I thought [Socks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socks_(cat)) died. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-rules-against-socks/776887/3 "2017-01-12T01:13:51Z")
If you’re Florida, socks _should_ be banned. Especially with sandals. ---
**Author:** ![ultimate11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/49beb7/32.png) [@ultimate11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultimate11)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-rules-against-socks/776887/4 "2017-01-12T01:25:29Z")
But circuit-level gateways need SOCKS! What will Florida do…oh, you mean regular socks? Oh. If the state of Florida is going to ban socks, sports teams and heavy sweaters are going to complain now. And don’t get me started on the vacationers from Florida that need to go to a cooler climate, they’re going to have frostbite. ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-rules-against-socks/776887/5 "2017-01-12T15:05:55Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > If you’re Florida, socks _should_ be banned. Especially with sandals. But I thought dark socks and sandals below shorts pulled up to the navel was the required uniform. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-rules-against-socks/776887/6 "2017-01-12T15:29:16Z")
Sure, they worry about socks. But the real problem is all the violins in popular culture. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-rules-against-socks/776887/7 "2017-01-12T16:55:59Z")
> [@Mollie\_Magill](#): > > But I thought dark socks and sandals below shorts pulled up to the navel was the required uniform. In retirement communities, yes. Elsewhere in the state it’s simply a marker for people you don’t want to be stuck behind in supermarket aisles or on single-lane roads. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctor_jackson/32/32_2.png) [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-rules-against-socks/776887/8 "2017-01-12T20:29:20Z")
All roads are single lane, some just have more of them. If we would only dispose of those socks that have holes in them, there would be no more socks. [sub]Philosophy Phor Phree by DJ[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![TBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c89c15/32.png) [@TBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBG)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-rules-against-socks/776887/9 "2017-01-19T21:24:02Z")
But are Alts still okay? I only make Alts (not here, though, mods)