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?
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.