Dana Thornton, 41, of New Jersey has been charged with identity theft after she allegedly created a fake Facebook page in the name of her ex-boyfriend, a narcotics detective in Parsippany and posted all kinds of unflattering and outrageous photos and fake posts. The latest news: Superior Court Judge David Ironson in Morristown, NJ has refused to dismiss the indictment. Thornton, has pleaded not guilty; she faces up to 18 months in prison if convicted.
According to Ironson, the evidence presented to the grand jury showed Thornton had allegedly "injured" the detective’s reputation with her "impersonation." Thornton’s attorney argued the current law prohibiting identity theft on the Internet does not include "electronic communications" and that the indictment should be dismissed. Judge Thornton ruled, however, that the law is "clear and unambiguous," and does not specify the "means" by which the injury could occur.
The prosecution introduced evidence of posts that included, "I’m a sick piece of scum with a gun" and "I’m an undercover narcotics detective that gets high every day."
Apparently there are some who fear that a criminal charge might not stick for what sounds like a tort action for an invasion of privacy claim--specifically that form known as "false light"--that would expose a person to civil suit and payment of monetary damages. Legislation is pending in the NJ legislature and an amendment to the law that would specifically bar internet impersonation has passed the Assembly and is now in the Senate. Thornton's lawyer says that this means there was nothing illegal in Thornton’s alleged postings.
You may read more about this interesting new twist on Facebook and relationships here. Ben Horowitz, "Judge rules case of Belleville woman's fake Facebook page can proceed", New Jersey Star-Ledger, Nov 2, 2011. Other interesting Internet invasion of privacy cases were blogged here:
See Divorce Wars | Blogs, free speech & getting even. William Krasnansky used to have a blog called Lookatmypugs. It was filled with quotes from his wife's diaries and also photos. A judge ordered him to take it down. It was virulent and, in my opinion, just another form of domestic abuse.
After Krasnansky telephoned me at night at my home to complain about my post and tell me his "side of the story," I was angered enough to research and explain how the law of invasion of privacy and its various forms applied to his conduct, which I found dispicable. Divorce Wars & Invasion of Privacy. I've always wondered whether my discussion of possible civil suits to get into his wallet influenced his taking down of the blog, which he claimed was impervious to court order as "free speech."
Comments