Trolling, internet fraud, identity theft...and a member of the military

Another MB I attend had been repeatedly attacked by a particularly vicious and cruel troll (worst I have EVER seen, anywhere, in 9+ years on message boards). It was pretty apparent to mods and those on the MB that it was “one of us” who would occasionally go into attack mode…just who it was remained to be seen. This troll wrote some jaw-droppingly unspeakable horrors, often directed at someone whose toddler had died in an accident.

The troll has finally been identified (they had a revolving ISP, which made it tricky for the board admins). Turns out, not only were they posting evil crap with us, they had assumed the identity of their favorite target and had posted at other forums as this grieving woman. Sick MoFo.

If indeed it is the person the mods have identified, they are a member of the military stationed overseas.

My question is: Does the fact they are military mean they are in a deeper pile of doo-doo than your average internet jerk? What, if any, type of discipline could they face?

(I’m trying to give details while remaining vague enough to conceal the MB and troll’s identities…I don’t want to stir up anything here.)

Of course…who knows WHAT is true with this person. I’m asking this question assuming they are a member of the military, and not stealing the identity/story/pics of someone who else actually is. They do know for sure from tracing their IP and ISP that this person is overseas.

Members of the military are obviously held to a higher standard than your average John Q. Taxpayer. That being said, there are tighter expectations of behavior from us (I’m gonna speak as one here). In the particular instance, I can’t think of anything in the UCMJ that would directly prohibit posting as someone else, except for Conduct Unbecoming an Officer/NCO. A lot of it would depend on the rank of the individual. Now if the individual were reported to his First Sergeant or Commander, and that individual were ordered to cease and desist such inflammatory remarks yet continues, then the individual can be cited for violation of a direct order (That’s how Kelly Flynn, the first female B-52 pilot got herself into trouble). If the individual hijacked an identity for monetary gain, then s/he is in a world of sh*t–basically “Fraud”.

My recommendation would be for the ISP or other powers that be identify what branch of the service they suspect this individual is a member of, and contact that branch’s internal criminal investigation division:

Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID)
Navy Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS) or the
Air Force Office of Special Investigation (AFOSI)

From there, let the particular branch office know the particulars. Unfortunately, being an asshole is not against the law. Being an asshole and bringing discredit to the Armed Forces is.

Tripler
Internet forums and chat rooms get a lot of people into trouble–either surfin’ for porn, or letting sensitive information out on 'em.

If the person is military and the military feels this person needs to be charged there is always the catchall article of the UCMJ.

" 934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

I see a lot of nonmilitary folks tossing “Article 134” around. It’s not as pat a thing as many people think it is. Scope out The Manual for Courts-Martial and you’ll see a very thorough explanation of how that article can and cannot be used. The CO can’t just say, “Hey, that behavior is bad for our image!” and then slam the member with Article 134. As with all other laws, the behavior itself must be defined in advance as inappropriate.