Online impersonation in Texas is when will h1b results come out 2025an internet-based crime with growing relevance in family law. Perpetrators are increasingly impersonating spouses, boyfriends/girlfriends and “other” men or women online to gain leverage in divorce cases, check up on paramours or just for spite.

In 2009, the Texas Legislature passed the online impersonation statute (Texas Penal Code Section 33.07) after multiple incidents of people using social media to pretend to be someone else with the intent to harass, stalk or defraud. For instance, a spurned lover or angry ex-husband might create a fake website in an ex’s name, detailing a number of sex acts she might perform, and include her phone number as a way to get back at her.

The law says a person commits an offense if he or she, without obtaining the other person’s consent and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten, uses the name or persona of the other person in one of two ways online.

The perpetrator can violate the law by (1) creating a page on a website or other commercial social networking site or by (2) sending messages through an existing website or commercial social networking site. This is a serious offense, the first type of violation punishable as a third degree felony. The second type of violation is punishable as a misdemeanor but can rise to the level of a felony if the offense is committed with the intent to solicit a response by emergency personnel.

Other third degree felonies in Texas are assault and battery, elder abuse, transmission of pornography and driving under the influence. If charged as a felony, online impersonation is punishable by a term of not more than 10 years or less than two years in prison. This violation might also involve a civil lawsuit that could cost the perpetrator money and leverage in a divorce.

When this law was passed, the Legislature apparently felt an existing law against online harassment, a Class B misdemeanor, was not strong enough.

In the family law context, there are numerous examples of online impersonation. A couple is divorcing. The husband learns his wife frequents an online dating site and communicates with another man. Hoping to prove she is guilty of adultery and establish “fault” in the divorce, the husband creates a Facebook page as that other man, exports the man’s image from Instagram and populates the new page with stock images. He sends a private message to his wife

as

the other man. The wife answers and sends a message saying how happy she is to hear from the other man.

To the husband, her willingness to “hook up” later in the week proves her cheating. He gets angry, vents his rage at his wife and demands that she move out of the family home. She contacts police, consults with an attorney and discovers her husband can be charged with online impersonation. Her divorce attorney requests a restraining order, which will not look good to the judge in their divorce case. She can amend her divorce petition to add a civil cause of action for online impersonation and request monetary damages.

The husband is in a difficult position. On the one hand, he feels victimized by his wife’s extramarital behavior and needs proof of her adultery for the divorce. On the other hand, he acted rashly and now she has him over a barrel. He could wind up defending a charge of online impersonation and possibly either serve jail time or pay her a money judgment in the divorce for his actions. His actions can cost him money and possibly reduce his access to his children if he has to serve jail time.

In its nine years on the books, the online impersonation statute has been roundly criticized and the subject of numerous appeals. Critics consider it poorly written, overly broad, vague, and unconstitutional because it restricts free speech in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As proof, critics point out that the term “online impersonation” is not even in the text of the statute, only in the title. It also doesn’t define what is meant when a person “

uses

the name or persona of another person.”

Challenges to the statute allege that it could be a workaround of the First Amendment by outlawing pranks and jokes on the internet or even criticisms of celebrities or politicians.

It would be easy to convert our husband/wife/other man story to just such a prank. Instead of creating the Facebook page as the other man, he names the page

THISGUYISAHOMEWRECKER

. There is no attempt to defraud or impersonate anyone. The site is obviously the work of another person. Depending on what he says about the man, there may be an action for defamation possible, but probably not impersonation.

Appellate judges who have ruled on cases involving online impersonation have called upon prosecutors to apply common sense in place of faulty language. There promises to be many more appeals to this law. Let’s hope that common sense wins out.

Christine P. Leatherberry is one of the Top 100 Up-and-Coming Attorneys in Texas , one of the Top 50 Up-and-Coming Women Attorneys in Texas for the last two years, and was named to Texas Rising Stars the past five years. She is an attorney at Connatser Family Law in Uptown Dallas. Contact her at [email protected].

View comments