The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals November 2017 Unmasking the Teen Cyberbully: A First Amendment-Compliant Approach to Protecting Child Victims of Anonymous, School-Related Internet Harassment Benjamin A. Holden Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Holden, Benjamin A. (2017) "Unmasking the Teen Cyberbully: A First Amendment-Compliant Approach to Protecting Child Victims of Anonymous, School-Related Internet Harassment," Akron Law Review: Vol. 51 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol51/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Holden: Unmasking the Teen Cyberbully UNMASKING THE TEEN CYBERBULLY: A FIRST AMENDMENT-COMPLIANT APPROACH TO PROTECTING CHILD VICTIMS OF ANONYMOUS, SCHOOL-RELATED INTERNET HARASSMENT By: Benjamin A. Holden* I. Introduction and Overview ............................................ 2 II. Minors and The First Amendment ................................. 9 A. The First Amendment and Minors Generally ....... 10 B. The First Amendment and The Student Speech Cases ..................................................................... 10 C. The First Amendment and The Child Protection Cases ..................................................................... 12 1. Ginsberg v. New York: “Variable Obscenity” . 13 2. Prince v. Massachusetts: “‘Protect the welfare of children’ . ‘safeguarded from abuses’” ........ 14 3. Erznoznik v. Jacksonville: “Arbitrary” content discrimination disallowed ................................ 14 4. Brown v. EMA: No “historical warrant” banning or regulating video games................................ 15 D. Tinker Meets the Cyberbully ................................ 16 III. Cyberbullying: Forum, Prevalence, Frequency, & Solutions ...................................................................... 17 A. The Cyberbully’s Playground: A Brief History of Facebook ............................................................... 18 B. Other Social Media Websites (and Apps) Used for Anonymous Cyberbullying ................................... 19 C. Prevalence and Frequency Studies........................ 21 D. Cyberbully Victims: Real-World Examples ......... 24 IV. The Law Of Unmasking In Civil Suits Under the First Amendment ................................................................. 27 A. Framing the Issue .................................................. 27 B. Mechanics of Unmasking ..................................... 29 C. Cyberbully Unmasking Litigation ........................ 31 1 Published by IdeaExchange@UAkron, 2017 1 Akron Law Review, Vol. 51 [2017], Iss. 1, Art. 1 2 AKRON LAW REVIEW [51:1 1. Doe v. Individuals ............................................ 32 2. Juzwiak v. Doe ................................................. 33 3. A.Z. v. Doe ....................................................... 34 4. Wilson v. Doe ................................................... 35 5. Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. Doe ............ 36 6. Hadley v. Doe .................................................. 36 V. Toward A New Standard: The Cyberbully Unmasking Test .............................................................................. 37 A. A Constitutionally Valid Unmasking Standard Based on Child Protection .................................... 38 1. Tinker’s Cyber Reach Presumed by Most Courts............................................................... 38 2. Applicability of Child Protection Cases to Cyberbullying .................................................. 40 B. The Cyberbully Unmasking Test .......................... 42 C. Constitutional Analysis of the Cyberbully Unmasking Test .................................................... 46 1. Is Ginsberg Limited to Obscenity? .................. 46 2. Applicable Standard ........................................ 47 3. Compelling Government Interest .................... 48 4. Narrow Tailoring/Least Restrictive Means ..... 48 D. Applying the Cyberbully Unmasking Test to Five Actual Cases.......................................................... 49 1. Case 1: People v. Marquan .............................. 49 2. Case 2: A.Z. v. Doe .......................................... 50 3. Case 3: Juzwiak v. Doe .................................... 50 4. Case 4: Doe v. Individuals ............................... 52 5. Case 5: Wilson v. Doe ...................................... 52 6. Other Relevant Cases ....................................... 52 VI. Conclusion ................................................................... 53 I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Americans have the right under the U.S. Constitution to speak 1 anonymously. However, this right is not absolute. It is subject to a * Teaching Assistant Professor in the College of Media at the University of Illinois, with research focus on the impact of social media on the First Amendment. Follow him on Twitter @BenHolden. The author was previously the director of the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Courts & Media at the National Judicial College, where work on this article began. Many thanks to the NJC faculty and staff, and to Al Stavitsky, dean of the Reynolds School of Journalism at the University of Nevada-Reno, and to the many students (some of whom are now lawyers) who provided research http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol51/iss1/1 2 Holden: Unmasking the Teen Cyberbully 2017] UNMASKING THE TEEN CYBERBULLY 3 developing body of law which allows a judge to order the involuntary disclosure, during pre-trial discovery in civil cases,2 of the identity of anonymous speakers.3 Courts and scholars have struggled, as the law of the Internet has developed, with line-drawing between the right to anonymity and the right to be free from tortious or harassing conduct on the Web.4 The problem is more acute for teens, whose social universe is often more “virtual”5 than real. Thanks to smartphones and other mobile support and/or social media trend advice, including: Megan McKisson, Kristin Stallion, Audra Parton, Gillian Griffith, Farah Chalisa, Mariah Schaefer, Sharmenley Edouard, Joy Holden, Raytrevius Peterson, Teagan Vogel and Mary Leahy. Thanks for IT support from Meghan Smith. Finally, the author thanks his wife Melanie Slaton, his Berkeley Law School crush and the best public school district lawyer in Georgia, for her ideas, editing and insights. 1. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 341-42 (1995); but see id. at 371-85 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (arguing that no such anonymity right exists under the First Amendment in McIntyre); see also id. at 358-71 (Thomas, J., concurring) (concurring in, but rejecting, the reasoning of the majority opinion while refuting some of Justice Scalia’s historical presumptions of the Founding Fathers as to the right to speak anonymously in political pamphlets and political argument generally). 2. The most relevant type of cases in the context of unmasking are speech-related torts, such as defamation and harassment. The word “harassment” in the title of this Article is used generically to include all speech-related torts, including without limitation, civil harassment under state law, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, false light, and public disclosure of private facts. 3. This is accomplished via a civil subpoena requesting the Internet Protocol address of the computer that sent the offending message, as a discovery demand in a lawsuit. See Dendrite Int’l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (2001); Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005); Indep. Newspaper v. Brodie, 966 A.2d 432 (Md. 2009); Maxon v. Ottawa Publ’g Co., 929 N.E.2d 666 (Ill. App. 2010); John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811 (2010). 4. See generally Nathaniel Gleicher, Note, John Doe Subpoenas: Toward a Consistent Legal Standard, 118 YALE L.J. 320 (2008); Michael S. Vogel, Unmasking ‘John Doe’ Defendants: The Case Against Excessive Hand-Wringing Over Legal Standards, 83 OR. L. REV. 795 (2004); Caroline E. Strickland, Note, Applying McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission to Anonymous Speech on the Internet and the Discovery of John Doe’s Identity, 58 WASH & LEE L. REV. 1537 (2001); Kristina Ringland, Internet User Anonymity, First Amendment Protections and Mobilisa: Changing the Cahill Test, 5 SHIDLER J.L. COM. & TECH. 16 (2009); Legal Protections for Anonymous Speech, Digital Media Law Project’s Legal Guide, http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-protections- anonymous-speech [http://perma.cc/M4P2-F8MV] (last visited Mar. 30, 2016); Jason A. Martin, et al., Anonymous Speakers and Confidential Sources: Using Shield Laws When They Overlap, 16 COMM. L. & POL’Y 89 (2011). 5. Gina Cerasiotis, Parents Struggling to Drag Kids from Virtual World to Real World, HERALD SUN (Sept. 16, 2017) http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/parents-struggling-to-drag-kids- from-virtual-world-into-real-world/news-story/bd9494f69889898b5a058b20d6a6c5de