The who, what, why and where of online anonymity: Toward a judicial rubric for choosing alternative unmasking standards

An examination of the law regarding revelation of anonymous online posters' identities revealed an initial systemic application of ad hoc procedures to guide courts' analyses, coalescing in the general adoption of one of three unmasking tests. Yet courts failed to agree which standard should apply in a given situation, creating unacceptable confusion and uncertainty, with significant First Amendment interests at stake. The dissertation proposes and defends the application of a systematized rubric to guide courts' determinations. The rubric is created by culling and consolidating the salient factors guiding courts' adoption of an unmasking standard, ascertained through a thorough analysis of the judicial opinions citing these unmasking tests. The rubric is then applied to a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate its utility for legal analysis.