David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This Note considers the rising trend of anonymous online harassment and the use of John Doe subpoenas to unmask anonymous speakers. Although anonymity often serves as an important shield for valuable speech, it also protects online harassment that can chill or completely silence the speech of its targets. This Note argues that the public figure doctrine should be adapted to John Doe subpoenas to distinguish between online harassment and more valued anonymous speech. It then divides John Doe subpoena standards into six constituent factors, evaluates each one, and proposes a final standard that consistently balances the needs of plaintiffs and defendants and helps judges to distinguish online harassment from other forms of anonymous speech.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
John J. Paris & Anne B. Fletcher (1983). Infant Doe Regulations and the Absolute Requirement to Use Nourishment and Fluids for the Dying Infant. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 11 (5):210-213.
Douglas N. Husak (1985). What is so Special About [Free] Speech? Law and Philosophy 4 (1):1 - 15.
Neil Delaney (2001). To Double Business Bound. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 75 (4):561-583.
Margaret Crouch (2009). Sexual Harassment in Public Places. Social Philosophy Today 25:137-148.
Hiroaki Morio & Christopher Buchholz (2009). How Anonymous Are You Online? Examining Online Social Behaviors From a Cross-Cultural Perspective. AI and Society 23 (2):297-307.
M. J. Booker (1998). Can Sexual Harassment Be Salvaged? Journal of Business Ethics 17 (11):1171-1177.
Loretta M. Kopelman (2005). Rejecting the Baby Doe Rules and Defending a "Negative" Analysis of the Best Interests Standard. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (4):331 – 352.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-04-30
Total downloads1 ( #514,100 of 1,692,222 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #184,284 of 1,692,222 )
How can I increase my downloads?