Posted on 01/14/2011 11:21:05 AM PST by markomalley
Two teenage girls in Florida are facing serious criminal charges for a Facebook prank they played on a classmate. The girls, aged 15 and 16, created a fake Facebook profile in the name of another studenta girl they were no longer friends withand added photos doctored to make it look like their victim was engaged in sexually explicit acts, the Marco Eagle reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at newser.com ...
Only in your mind. Again, fraud isn't was is belong alleged here - "cyberbullying" and stalking is. If it's fraudulent, the charge them with fraud. It isn't fraudulent because there alleged perpetrators have not enriched themselves or benefited in any way. A basic understanding of criminal law, might be helpful here.
Perhaps Facebook could file a civil suit for fraudulent infringement, but that would be ENTIRELY up to Facebook. It would not be a criminal allegation, but a civil allegation.
Yes, we have protections against libel and slander. Those protections are found in CIVIL law, not criminal law.
"I disagree with your personal assertion that the founders were idiots and that they did not know what they were doing. "
I have no idea how you came up with that little nugget. Where do I assert the founders were idiots?
>Glad to see that someone understands the issue here - free speech.
Actually the issue is criminal activity, not free speech.
>I also dont understand how creating a fake profile on a free internet website amounts to fraud when it isnt done for any financial or material gain.
From the Terms of Service:
4. Registration and Account Security
— Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:
—— 1. You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
[...]
5. Protecting Other People’s Rights
— We respect other people’s rights, and expect you to do the same.
—— 1. You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law.
Clearly multiple violations of a legal contract.
“It was satire.”
It was fraud and libel
“But, in this country, we don’t litigate slander/libel suits in criminal court, do we?”
Yes.
http://www.dbaoracle.com/oracle_news/news_states_criminal_libel_web_internet.htm
See post 23, the creators of the ‘parody’ were in-fact in breach of contract.
Period.
Those terms of service, are they between a website and an individual signing up, or between the law of the land, and the individual?
I might be butchering that phrase but basically free speech carries with it some responsibility. That is why we have civil proceedings for things such as slander and defamation of character and I think that kind of legal action is applicable here.
You must be a liberal who never listens to Rush.
He does not do what you say.
They weren't charged with fraud, were they? There's a legal reason for that. Generally, for someone to be convicted of fraud, they must have attempted to enrich themselves with the fraud. Furthermore, Libel is NOT a criminal action, but a civil action.
It's puzzling how people who are posting on a website called "Free Republic" could be so plainly obtuse about the differences between criminal and civil legal violations.
Please, tell me how many people we have in prison for slander and libel.
“It was fraud and libel”
Agreed, I would even say it might even fall into the category of identity theft.
Those particular ones are between the website and the person[s] signing up.
But that does not rule-out the possibility of the the law “between the law of the land and the individual” (as you put it) being violated.
Terrific. How many people are in America's prisons for "breach of contract"? I'll wait.
“Only in your mind.”
You really need to do more research.
In Florida, what the kids did was a criminal offence under the stalker laws.
The first amendment does not give anyone the right to do anything, anytime, anywhere, as some apparently think.
If so, someone could justify murder in that they were just exercising their first amendment rights to express their displeasure w/the victim.
Reference on Florida law below.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7401782_florida-stalker-laws.html
Misdemeanor or First Degree
Misdemeanor stalking is intentionally following, calling or using the Internet to harass another person. Under Florida law, misdemeanor stalking involves the intent to cause distress, but not necessarily to do bodily harm. The maximum punishment for misdemeanor stalking in Florida is a jail sentence of one year, plus fines that start at $1,000.
Oh, good one, I hadn’t thought of that.
Of course now you’re going to get people saying “it couldn’t be identity theft because the person has to be trying to enrich themselves [so it must be free speech].”...
Thanks for finding that.
So, when does the violation of a private agreement between two individual entities force the legal system to intervene? Is Facebook granted powers beyond denial of service, for a violation of those privately-agreed, non-notarised terms of service?
What part of "hopefully won't survive a facial challenge on 1A grounds" don't you understand, sport?
I'm well aware of the what the FL statute says. I passed the Florida bar - on the first try, no less. How about you?
See post 34 by fruser1.
Is it possible that the Floridan law is in violation of the First Amendment?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.