A woman who alleges two people created a fake Facebook page with her personal information has no claim under laws aimed at computer hackers and electronic trespassers, a federal judge has held.

In a written opinion Monday, U.S. District Judge James F. Holderman — who retired from the bench that day — threw out counts under the Stored Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that Bridget Bittman included in her lawsuit.

Neither the CFAA nor the SCA, Holderman wrote in the opinion, was enacted “to punish the creation of a fake social media account in violation of a social media company’s terms of service.”

Instead, Congress was concerned about attacks by “virus and worm writers” and “disgruntled programmers who decide to trash the employer’s data system on the way out” when it enacted the CFAA, Holderman wrote, quoting International Airport Centers LLC v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2006).

In enacting a provision of the SCA that allows private parties to sue for violations of that statute, he wrote, Congress wanted to protect personal and proprietary information contained in electronic and wire communications.

But the two people who allegedly impersonated Bittman on Facebook are not hackers or virus or worm writers, Holderman wrote.

“They did not access a computer to damage, steal or tamper with Bittman’s data,” he wrote.

Although he dismissed the CFAA and SCA counts, Holderman allowed Bittman to proceed with other counts, including one under the Electronic Communication Privacy Act.

Bittman works for the Orland Park Public Library and runs a floral-design business on the side.

She alleges she has been harassed and threatened by activists who oppose providing unfiltered Internet access at public libraries.

Two of the activists, Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan, created a Facebook page titled Sassy Plants Illinois, Bittman alleges.

Fox and DuJan used her personal information to create the page, she alleges, and made it appear that she operated the page.

Fox and DuJan posted copyrighted photos on the page as well as statements — purportedly made by her — that mocked potential customers and referred to gay people as “fruits,” Bittman alleges.

She alleges Fox posted statements on her own Facebook page accusing her of filing false police reports and suggesting she drinks on the job.

Fox and DuJan also posted photographs of her home online in an effort to harass her, Bittman alleges.

And Fox posted a video on YouTube, she alleges, that was accompanied by a caption falsely stating she engaged in disorderly conduct, brandished a weapon and made an anti-gay slur at a public meeting.

Adam Andrzejewski of For the Good of Illinois — an organization dedicated to government transparency — sent an e-mail to 60,000 people that included a link to the video, Bittman alleges.

She alleges Dan Kleinman also published the video on his Safe Libraries blog.

Last month, Andrzejewski and For the Good of Illinois settled the claims against them for an undisclosed amount. Those claims accused them of defamation and placing Bittman in a false light.

Fox, DuJan and Kleinman remain defendants in the suit.

Kleinman did not join Fox and DuJan in the motion to dismiss that Holderman addressed in Monday’s opinion.

In the opinion, Holderman threw out a claim of defamation per se related to the Sassy Plants Facebook page.

Bittman did not provide specific examples of the use of the word “fruit” on the page, Holderman wrote.

“The term ‘fruit’ lends itself to various interpretations depending on the context,” he wrote. “Bittman has failed to provide the context in which Fox and DuJan used the term.”

Other statements purportedly posted on the page “are not highly offensive such that they should be considered defamation per se,” Holderman wrote.

Those statements included “Sassiness is guaranteed” and a warning that potential customers should not try to arrange flowers themselves “because if you fail people will laugh at you.”

Even if those statements were defamatory, Holderman continued, “they are not actionable because they are susceptible to an innocent construction.”

Bridget Bittman v. Megan Fox, et al., No. 14 C 8191.

The lead attorney for Bittman, Charles Lee Mudd Jr. of Mudd Law Offices, could not be reached for comment.

The lead attorney for Fox and DuJan, Daniel R. Lombard of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, contended that it is his clients who are being harassed.

Bittman has filed a SLAPP suit, or a “strategic litigation against public participation” action, against Fox and DuJan in an attempt to intimidate them, Lombard said.

And if Holderman had allowed Bittman to pursue her CFAA and SCA claims, he contended, anyone who creates a satirical social media page or violates Facebook’s terms of use could have potentially faced criminal charges.