Ninth Circuit Unmasks Anonymous Internet Users and Lowers the Bar for Disclosure of Online Speakers
Vol: 7, Issue: 2, Page: 75
2011
- 82Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage82
- Downloads66
- Abstract Views16
Article Description
There is no judicial consensus about what test to apply when plaintiffs attempt to obtain the identity of an anonymous Internet user during discovery in an online defamation case. In July 2010, the Ninth Circuit became the first federal appeals court to devise an articulable test to determine when a plaintiff may compel disclosure of an online commentator. Previously, federal courts had applied inconsistent balancing tests to determine whether disclosure was appropriate. In In re Anonymous Online Speakers, the Ninth Circuit relied upon the Delaware state-court standard from Doe v. Cahill but applied this test in a way that made it easier for commercial defamation plaintiffs to obtain the identity of anonymous defendants. This Article surveys the prevalent online defamation cases, summarizing the three primary judicial tests applied by state courts and positing that other circuits likely will adopt the reasoning set forth in Anonymous Online Speakers for commercial online speech.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know