Fake Online Profiles Prompt Call for Reviving Criminal Libel Law:
The Bergen Record reports:
Assemblyman Kevin O'Toole, R-Wayne, has drafted a bill making it a crime to knowingly post false information about another individual on a Web site. [The text has not yet been finalized, so I couldn't get my hands on it -EV] ...
In February, someone created a phony profile of 12-year-old Monirae Hickey of Nutley on MySpace.com, posting her name, cellphone number and a photo of a provocatively dressed woman; the page said she was a stripper. As a result, the girl was barraged with phone calls....
For a bit more on the constitutional status of criminal libel laws, see here.
Accordingly, it seems that they could address the problem with a narrower law prohibiting speech that purports to come from someone else. (Note: I'm not talking about prohibiting anonymous or pseudonymous speech; I'm talking about speech that purports to come from a specific, real person other than yourself.)
That I think becomes a problem since satire often uses exactly that method of impersonation, especially on the web.
This could shut down nytimes.com.
Indeed, why not just make malicious libel a crime and then throw the web business into the sentencing scheme? That would be the conclusion I might reach after "[t]he state's Office of the Attorney General confirmed that ... [y]ou can seek relief by filing a defamation or harassment suit in civil court, but there are no criminal statutes in place."
Also, looking at the North Jersey article, can it possibly be true that "[i]t's perfectly legal to take an actual child's name, put it on a Web site and destroy that child's character by creating a slimy profile."
With the caveat that I am beyond my ken, might not N.J. Stat. § 2C:21-17 apply here ("A person is guilty of an offense if the person: (1) Impersonates another or assumes a false identity and does an act in such assumed character or false identity ... to injure or defraud another")?
Or just reinstate § 2A:120-1.
In response to Kierkegaard - a libel statute would clear place satire ala the Harriet Miers Blog in jeopardy while satire would be a defense to an impersonation offense which included an element of the intent to make others think the offender was the person being impersonated.
California's original constitutional provision at least arguably reflected the historical John Peter Zenger case. Omitting venue specifications, the portion of the constitutional provision regarding criminal libel was:
While it did indicate that truth alone was not a complete defense, it also expressly gave the jury the right to determine the law.
States may give special criminal law protection to especially vulnerable groups such as minors without violating the Constitution.
I believe harassment is a term used only in civil and family law.
Both Hawaii and Washington (two off the top of my head) have criminal law statutes called "harassment".
WA is basically a "threats" type of statute. Hawaii is an unwanted touching that doesn't rise to the level of an assault (with injuries)
I also don't see this as harassment, because until the victim sees the website and experiences the terror, alarm, etc., a crime has not occurred. If we’re going to pass a law to criminalize this behavior, the minimum conduct should be the creation of the website, irrespective of who may or may not see it.
It seems to me that putting up illicit, dangerous profiles of young girls is also a crime of attempt. The question is, attempt to what? The problem is that any potential offense must have a conduct component that is proximate to the victim’s injury, and it seems that the conduct which injures here is really being committed by the people who view the website and act on it, not the person who creates it.
a statute that would apply is some Criminal Impersonation statutes.
WA state's statute defines crim impers as "assumes a false identity and does an act in his or her assumed character with intent to defraud another OR for any other unlawful purpose"
this person certainly assumed a false identity, and did an act in that identity. was the website posting an "unlawful purpose" would be the question, i guess. I am pretty sure some crim impers statutes just reference doing an act in another's identity with intent to harm that person.
i think Colorado' statue might apply. it requires an act of impersonation wotjh the intent to unlawfully gain a benefit for himself or another person OR (emphasis mine) to INJURE OR DEFRAUD ANOTHER PERSON"
certainly, this internet posting done under this other person's identity was an act of impersonation and it did injure the victim.
of course, it didn't happen in colorado, so... :)
i don't think you need an internet specific statute, like referenced in the original post. just a crim impers statute that includes "causing a person harm" or "harm to their reputation " or something based on the false impersonation.
I think the colorado law would apply, in the same way as if you dressed up like Sally Smith, said you were sally smith, then stripped naked and ran through the streets, making people think Sally smith was a streaker (with a hairy chest)