I disagree. A restraining order is precisely meant to bar all forms of communication so that we don't need to decide on a case-by-case basis which communications violate the order, which would lead to highly unequal enforcement with some people being punished for things that others are not punished for.
Perhaps I wasn't too clear in my original post. I was making a normative statement, not a positive one. In other words, I accept that the actual law may consider this a violation; I'm questioning whether the law itself is acceptable in those terms.
Then again, I don't live in the USA, and the concept of a restraining order is a bit alien to me since it's not something heard of as much over here. There surely is some cultural bias at play.
I don't think it's too much to ask for courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. Establishment of intent is one of the main things courts exist for.
