Skip to comments.Teens Arrested Over Facebook Prank
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 ...
The kids created an offensive parody. They, from what I can discern in the story, did not attempt to userp the "victim's" identity for personal gain. It was satire. Mean satire, but satire nonetheless.
The First Amendment gives Americans the right to be offensive, and in fact to offend specific people. When we start criminalizing that offense, we might as well start shredding the Constitution.
Civil suit slander/libel.
Yes, the same kind that has driven other children to suicide. We could not disagree more.
Teachers have been fired for saucy online postings.
This kid could be applying for jobs one day and getting turned down for jobs because of what prospective employers find on the internet.
Definite lawsuit material. If it were me, I’d also sue to have the web-page data and archived versions deleted.
Remember this story next time some lib wants to argue about how pop culture, the internet, rap music, and all the rest hasn’t had much impact.
These are GIRLS! It’s impossible to even imagine teenage girls of 20-30-40 years ago creating homemade porn. We are losing the culture war, I’m afraid.
1) The victim is underage. The perps are lucky that they aren’t facing child-porn charges.
2) If I understood the story correctly, the perps did not parody the victim - the page created was represented as belonging to the victim. Fraud does not have 1st Amendment protection.
Apparently. If you wish to criminalize "mean speech" because the meanness of the of the speech might make someone do something untoward - either to themselves or to others, then yes, we could not disagree more.
Substitute "Rush Limbaugh" for "kids" - Rush Limbaugh's mean where website he hosts "mean, homophobic" parodies, made a gay student kill himself. Limbaugh has been charged with cyberbullying.
When can't limit one person's free speech rights because someone might be so offended by the exercise of those rights that they're incited to kill themselves, or even others.
Ummmm.... At the very least, this little stunt qualifies as defamation (either libel or slander, probably the latter).
Perhaps you're right that it's not a criminal matter....
But a hefty judgment in a civil lawsuit certainly seems to be in order.
By posting the material they did they were slandering/libeling her.
I don’t think it should be viewed as “First Amendment Rights.”
Glad to see that someone understands the issue here - free speech.
I also don’t understand how creating a fake profile on a free internet website amounts to fraud when it isn’t done for any financial or material gain.
Rush Limbaugh plays parodies created by someone else.
Those parodies are of public figures.
They are also “advertised” as parodies, not a true exposition created by the one being parodied.
Question: Does Rush Limbaugh enter into legal agreements claiming to be another person?
Question: Does Rush Limbaugh admit that his parodies are parodies; instead of presenting them to be true and factual accounts?
Question: Does Rush Limbaugh create pornographic material and claim that those he is against were involved therein?
Your analogy fails.
First, I don't believe it is fraud. But, argumentum, let's say you're right. Then, charge them with fraud, not "cyberbullying" whatever the hell that is.
"By posting the material they did they were slandering/libeling her."
Terrific. It sounds like a great civil case to be brought. But, in this country, we don't litigate slander/libel suits in criminal court, do we? The Founders had a reason for that. Under King George, slander/libel cases WERE litigated criminally, at least those against the crown.
I don't see the relevance of the age. Enlighten me.
With respect to your "child porn" assertion, the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), struck down provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 that dealt with "virtual pornography", which is what is alleged in this case. There is no risk of a "child porn" charge, here.
Apparently you think the protections against libel and slander that the founders considered necessary for civil society are outmoded.
I disagree with your personal assertion that the founders were idiots and that they did not know what they were doing. They did know, and they were far brighter than you are.
Also, does this not come under "right to privacy"? Doesn't posting photos of living persons - unless of public figures - require permission of the subject?
The teens should face child porn charges.
The fake account racked up 181 "friends" and the victim was "subjected to numerous incidents of teasing and ridicule for an ongoing period of time as a result," a school official says. The girls have been charged with aggravated stalking of a minor under 16 and have been ordered to have 21 days home detention before a hearing next month.
So it apparently crossed the line from parody to a situation with actual consequences for her reputation. And the girls apparently kept up their activities for some time.
It might even qualify as reckless endangerment -- one can easily imagine some mouth-breather taking this parody as permission to have his way with the "nasty girl" from the Facebook page.
It's a tough one ... but I think they crossed the line.
You can’t fix stupid.
Throw the book at ‘em.
This has nothing to do with “free speech”.
Pornography is NOT free speech.
Obscenity is NOT free speech.
The free speech in the first amendment is *POLITICAL* free speech.
The communists promote pornography as free speech and decry political speech as hate speech.
That was *NOT* the intent of the 1st Amendment, and there are those among the Founders who would probably challenge you to a duel for saying so, were they alive today.