Teens Arrested Over Facebook Prank

Newser ^ | 1/14/11 | Rob Quinn

[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 student—a girl they were no longer friends with—and added photos doctored to make it look like their victim was engaged in sexually explicit acts, the Marco Eagle reports.

[NormsRevenge]

The perps.

"It was a joke."

From The Smoking Gun - Girls Busted For Phony Facebook Pages

excerpted..

...

When deputies with the Lee County Sheriff’s Office last month interviewed one of the suspects, Taylor Wynn, 16, she admitted creating two fake Facebook pages “as a joke because she thought it would be funny.” Wynn said she was once friends with the unnamed victim, “but they do not like each other now.”

Wynn told probers that a second girl, McKenzie Barker, 15, created the image showing the victim’s head atop the naked body. Wynn reportedly copped to placing a photo of an adult male’s erect penis “by the victim’s face,” according to a sheriff’s report.

Wynn (left) and Barker are pictured in the above mug shots. They were arrested this week and each charged with a felony count of aggravated stalking of a minor under 16.

...

A pair of investigators interviewed Wynn last month in her mother’s presence at the family’s Estero home. When Heather Wynn asked her daughter “what made her hate the victim so much that she would do something so mean,” cops reported, the teenager replied, “Because nobody liked her.” The teen “added she thought it would be a funny joke.”

[NormsRevenge]

Ha Ha.

[dfwgator]

The teen “added she thought it would be a funny joke.”

Bet they aren't laughing now.

[EDINVA]

The victim is not a public figure. If this doesn’t stand as criminal, I do believe the victim would have grounds for slander and/or libel since FB is published.

[r9etb]

As you might have guess, I'm not a fan - at all - of these cyber-bullying laws.

I did guess that.... ;-) And I'm not all that hot on them myself. I think a civil suit is entirely appropriate, and it seems clear that she would have a slam-dunk case: the girls helpfully checked all the boxes for that.

Still, in this case it's more than just a parody: it can be argued that the girls might have edged over into something worse than a civil infraction. Note that people did not just view and enjoy the parody, but actually approached the victim herself on the basis of that parody. And there is at least the potential that one of those people might resort to physical actions, such as a grope or worse.

Depending on the tenacity with which the two girls maintained the Facebook page, and the nature of the "teasing and ridicule" that the page inspired, their actions could even qualify as harrassment.

I'd have to say we're in a gray area here -- it's not just a matter of "free speech," as somebody appears to have been actually harmed by what the girls did.

It's certainly actionable on a civil level; but it may indeed be a criminal matter as well.

[NormsRevenge]

I dread to think what might have become of my generation had the internet been around in the 60s.

Oh wait.. It probably wouldn’t matter anyway.. Kids reflect the environment they are raised in..

This is just one of the pitfalls of large social media web sites and shrinking cranial capabilities due to global varming. :-)

[EDINVA]

one problem, 15-16 year olds can’t enter into legally binding contracts.

[fruser1]

“Honestly, are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you just argumentative by nature?”

Interesting, that’s what I was wondering about you.

The Florida cyber-bullying law is listed as a criminal offence, not a civil one.

Since they are not being charged w/defamation, they are not being tried in civil court. That’s the only point, which I thought was patently obvious, I am making about the civil/criminal nature of THIS case.

Nevertheless, your proposed defense on first amendment grounds does not seem like it would hold water, given what is known about this case, and what I have read about concerning limits on free speech.

Therefore, again, I ask you to cite a SIMILAR case where first amendment grounds were used to get a dismissal.

So, if there’s ANY case where someone was charged with a criminal or civil offence involving the defendant purporting to be another person and got a dismissal based on first amendment grounds.

Or perhaps you can simply point to a law book that indicates there IS NO LIMIT to free speech.

Ultimately, that is the question here.

Is there a limit and does this case cross that boundary?

I say yes to both.

Have to sign off now.

I’ll be checking next week for that link.

[Ramius]

Good job. Your posts have been right on.

[dfwgator]

Imagine if it was around during WWII:

[OldDeckHand]

"The victim is not a public figure. If this doesn’t stand as criminal, I do believe the victim would have grounds for slander and/or libel since FB is published."

To be clear, I wasn't at all commenting on the civil remedies that might be available to the alleged victim. I was commenting solely on the criminalization of speech - mean speech in this instance.

Could there be a defamation case here? You betcha.

[NormsRevenge]

lol

[OneWingedShark]

True enough.

[OldDeckHand]

"You must be a liberal who never listens to Rush. He does not do what you say."

I think you missed (entirely) the point of my post. We can't have the government (in this instance, the Lee County Sheriff's department) deciding what is and what is not "mean" speech.

No, Limbaugh is not "mean" to homosexuals. That's my opinion. But, some sheriff in a FL county could think otherwise, and then elect to charge Limbaugh with cyber-bullying. When you start criminalizing antagonistic speech, it's a VERY SHORT distance until you start criminalizing political speech.

[EDINVA]

Well, the FL authorities seem to think the 2 girls who created the account violated a FL law. Perhaps they would be convicted on that, and then an appeal to the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional?

[OldDeckHand]

"Perhaps they would be convicted on that, and then an appeal to the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional?"

There are throngs of attorneys that are looking for the ideal case(s) to test the constitutionality of these cyberstalking laws. I don't know if this would be an ideal case, but it does present some interesting questions and the fact that the defendants are minor children also adds an interesting dimension.

In any event, unless this DA wants to get some national camera time (which is always a possibility), like most criminal complaints, it's probably more likely that this will end in a plea agreement rather than a jury trial.

[Will88]

Almost every kid or adult in the industrialized nations has more miniaturized ‘spy’ equipment available to them than the most leading edge spies in James Bond and other spy movies just twenty or so years ago. And, whatever they can produce can be put on the internet for all the world to see.

This is probably an area where some new, specific laws are needed to protect people’s privacy, and the provisions of the laws should be taught in every school from a fairly young age.

[dangerdoc]

If they signed up under the girls name;

They have commited fraud.
They have commited identity theft.
Not to mention posible libel.

If they posted naked prepubescent pictures, they also have violated child pornography laws.

I’m not sure the 1st Ammendment covers those activites.

[OldDeckHand]

"They have commited fraud."

They weren't charged with fraud, were they?

"They have commited identity theft."

They weren't charged with "identity theft".

"Not to mention posible libel."

Libel is a tort, not a crime - at least not since the US Revolution. You can't be "charged" with libel, or slander or defamation of character.

"If they posted naked prepubescent pictures, they also have violated child pornography laws."

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) struck down prohibitions of virtual child pornography. There's no child pornography case to be be made here, per the US Supreme Court.

Got anything else?

[Dante3]

A publication asked us for a photo and stated that the persons in it had to give written permission.