Georgia Republicans are set to make their state the first to ban doxxing, a grotesque practice whereby online “trolls” share private information about political opponents to put their lives at risk. But not everyone thinks it’s a good idea.
At a glance:
• Senate Bill 27, sponsored by Republican Senator John Albers, would make doxxing a misdemeanor on first offense and a felony for subsequent violations
• The bill passed the Georgia Senate with overwhelming support in a 52-1 vote
• The legislation defines doxxing as maliciously publishing private information online that causes fear or significant life disruptions
• Victims would be able to sue perpetrators for damages under the proposed law
• Critics argue the bill may be too broad and could potentially infringe on First Amendment rights
GOP Lawmakers Push for Protection After Becoming Targets
Georgia is witnessing an enormous push to ban doxxing after several Republican state senators were victims of dangerous “swatting” attacks in December 2023. Senator John Albers, the bill’s primary sponsor, was among those targeted in these coordinated attacks that involved false emergency reports designed to provoke armed police responses to their homes.
These incidents highlight the growing threat faced by conservative elected officials as technology evolves and personal information becomes more accessible online. Senator Kay Kirkpatrick, another swatting victim, expressed strong support for the bill, stating, “We’re living in a dangerous world, and I think this bill would help with that.”
The legislation would criminalize the act of publishing private identifying information with malicious intent on social media or electronic platforms. Under the proposal, offenders would face misdemeanor charges for a first offense, but penalties would escalate to felony charges for repeat offenses or if the doxxing results in substantial harm.
Senator Albers emphasized the need for this protection, saying, “As you look at technology, it keeps evolving. And as people have access to more information, unfortunately, they have more access to how to get to people.”
Bill Provides Strong Protections with Enhanced Penalties
Senate Bill 27 contains robust provisions to protect potential victims, especially minors. If an adult over 20 targets someone under 19 through doxxing, they would face immediate felony charges and 1-10 years in prison, bypassing the usual first-offense misdemeanor.
The bill specifically defines “substantial life disruption” to include changing phone numbers, email addresses, deleting accounts, reducing internet use, altering routines, changing jobs, or losing over $500. These concrete definitions would help prosecutors establish clear cases against those who maliciously expose others’ personal information online.
Victims would also gain the ability to petition for protective orders against their harassers and could sue for both punitive and actual damages in superior court if they suffer monetary loss, physical harm, or death due to doxxing. This civil remedy provides an additional layer of protection beyond criminal penalties.
Two men, Thomasz Szabo and Nemanja Radovanovic, were charged with 34 felonies for the hoax threats against Republican senators Albers, Dixon, and Kirkpatrick. These real-world consequences demonstrate why stronger legal protections are necessary in the digital age.
Critics Raise Concerns
Despite the bill’s overwhelming support in the Georgia Senate, some critics have raised concerns about potential First Amendment implications. Liberal organizations and defense attorneys have suggested the bill’s language may be overly broad and could potentially criminalize ordinary criticism or reporting.
Andrew Fleishman, a criminal defense attorney who testified against the bill, made the dramatic claim that it could be a “law against criticism of any kind.” However, the bill’s supporters point to specific provisions ensuring it does not infringe on freedom of speech or expression, except for true threats or incitement of illegal actions.
Senator Albers addressed these concerns directly, stating, “We’re at this time in America where the pendulum needs to shift back to rational, common-sense professionalism.” This sentiment reflects growing conservative frustration with online harassment targeting public officials and private citizens expressing traditional values.
The bill isn’t law just yet, but it could happen soon. What do our readers think – is this a good idea?