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.
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.