Teens Arrested Over Facebook Prank

As I think about this, my foremost thoughts are: what makes some kids so sick, so vicious, so entitled that they do things like this, when there’s a growing history of victims of similar activities who have committed suicide?

From a legal puzzling about perspective, I’d actually look at identity theft. The freedom of speech was not exercised in the perps’ own names. Does freedom of speech extend to others purporting to speak for us when their speech is meant to harm us? Is opening a FB account, then posting porno pix of another, less or more offensive than purporting to be the person to whom a credit card is issued? I’ve been victim of the latter, and think I’d prefer that to the former.

A. B. and C. D. are grounded.

Really? You think it was okay, and that is your response?

Do you think they did not commit fraud, identity theft and indecency?

If you notice, I did not say they commited libel, but if I were the parent, I would seek civil damages, assuming I cooled down enough not to do uncivil damages.

As I think about it, I think I see where you are coming from, we don’t need more laws. This is also my point too, we have laws in effect to deal with this. And I do think the book needs to be thrown at them.

How would you like somebody signing into Free Republic as OldDeckHand and campaining for Obama? How would you like somebody buying drugs on the corner and using your name? Names and reputations are a valuable asset, a wise person spends a lifetime investing in theirs and jealously guards it.

The funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time.

I needed the laugh and I do have a Facebook account and consider much of it ridiculous.

Thanks for posting it.

"As I think about this, my foremost thoughts are: what makes some kids so sick, so vicious, so entitled that they do things like this, when there’s a growing history of victims of similar activities who have committed suicide?"

There aren't a crueler bunch of people in society than teenage girls. That's a certainty.

"From a legal puzzling about perspective, I’d actually look at identity theft."

Generally speaking, identity theft requires that the assumed identity was used to obtain something, to enrich or benefit the thief in some way. That's not the case here, so it's unlikely prosecution could prevail on a charge of identity theft.

Fraud is perhaps a little easier to prove because there is a provision in the FL fraud statute that addressing fraud for harassing purposes. I would have to read the relevant case law, but I think even with that statute, it demands that fraudulent information (beyond just a name) was used to establish an identity - like a social security number or even an address. I'm not a Facebook user myself, but I don't believe anything is required to establish a Facebook account other than a name and an email address - this is probably why fraud wasn't alleged.

If they had assumed her identity and done something with that identity, like purchased something or applied for a credit card, or used more specific personal information than just a name, then fraud and identity theft would be in play. They didn't.

This is one of the reasons the legislature came up with this cyberstalking statutes to begin with - just impersonating someone online wasn't necessarily criminal, in and of itself.

Everyone is hung up on the "impersonation" bit. It's not material. If it was material, they would have charged something. They didn't. It's about the intentional and malevolent "stalking" that is being alleged. They could have opened up a facebook page of a entirely fictitious person, and posted the pictures of their victim then made that fictitious person a "friend" of everyone at that school. The outcome would have been the same.

Remember, intent is part of this crime - did the girls intend it to be a malicious act, or did they just intend it to be a joke. Just because the alleged victim took it as malicious, doesn't mean it was malicious or even intended maliciously.

By the way, this would be a much less complicated scenario if the Facebook page was authentic and then hacked in someway to post the pictures. There are well-tested statutes on the books that would have dealt with that. It's this psuedo-fraud that becomes more problematic for prosecution.

Think about how many fake Twitter accounts there are out there. To date, no one has been arrested and convicted for impersonating someone on Twitter.

Sounds more like libel to me. Which is an actionable offense.

"How would you like somebody buying drugs on the corner and using your name? Names and reputations are a valuable asset, a wise person spends a lifetime investing in theirs and jealously guards it."

Right, we have a mechanism already in place to deal with just those occurrences - the civil tort system. If someone appropriates my name or likeness without my permission (generally) they aren't arrested and charged with a crime. They are sued in civil court for damages. That should have been the outcome here.

This young lady was perhaps defamed and that defamation should be compensated with a monetary award.

As I said in another thread, wait until someone arrests Rush Limbaugh for "stalking". It's coming.

omg .. in their world, these girls DID gain something .. what is more important to two vicious teenage girls than the social debasement of a rival? That was their goal, and that’s what they achieved, however short-term. And, however poorly it plays ultimately against their self-interest. There go their college funds to legal fees and possible judgment against them and/or their parents.

The story referred to the victim as a girl who used to be friends with them. Who plays jokes, much less of this variety, on a former friend without malice? How did anyone know to become ‘friends’ with the phony FB page? Guaranteed, they will come up with students at the school who can testify about statements made to show malice.

Libel is NOT NOT NOT protected by the 1st amendment.

Defamation of character is the communication of false information stated as a fact which brings harm to an individual or an entity, such as a business, group or government. For it to be defamation, the statement must be delivered in speech or in writing to at least one person other than the victim.

Libel is the defamation of an individual's or an entity's character which is published in a written medium, such as a newspaper. However, any written communication can be libelous as long as it's transmitted to a third party.

Internet searches are now routinely done by hiring businesses, associations, and colleges before an applicant is accepted. Even if the Facebook page was taken down, there is a better than even chance that the information (especially the pictures) have be copied and distributed across the internet.

What happens when a hiring company or college does an internet search on her name, and what seem to be genuine explicit photos of her show up? Do you think she'll get that job or be accepted to that private college?

Darn right she has been harmed.

You must not have read the entire thread before posting your comment. I was speaking in the context of the criminal prosecution. Sure, what they said might be actionable civilly - by the person who was alleged defamed - but not criminally, at least not in this country.

Unlike some European countries, libel and defamation of character are not criminal offenses. The moment the government starts criminalizing distasteful speech, is the moment the fascists have won.