Online Impersonation Continues, With Varying Consequences

This is hardly common Internet debate fodder, and it illustrates how the ease of access to anonymous, seemingly consequence-free communication provided by the Internet can create conflicts that in the past may not have materialized. If nothing else, Golb also sheds insight into how even the most particularized and arcane subjects ripe for argument can metastasize into legal proceedings that lead to a criminal conviction of the impersonator. Over a vigorous dissent arguing that criminalizing this speech constituted a First Amendment violation, the Court of Appeals concluded that most of such acts of impersonation could sustain a criminal conviction.

Golb is hardly an outlier. As discussed further below, litigation that seeks to hold online impersonators liable for any havoc they may cause, whether it be of a financial, reputational or emotional nature, has proliferated in numerous jurisdictions. Thus far, plaintiffs have found moderate success, although convictions under federal criminal anti-hacking statutes appear to be the exception to the rule. Another common element of these actions is that most focus on messages understood to be coming from the ostensible sender, and not the impersonator, as such message are naturally those less likely to be understood as false. Finally, these cases illustrate that to be actionable, the messages must be reasonably considered to not involve obvious parodies or jokes.