Georgia Antidoxing Bill Could Criminalize Everyday Criticism
The bill is a "law against criticism of any kind," Andrew Fleishman, a criminal defense attorney who testified against the bill, told Reason. "It means that if I act with reckless disregard for the possibility that it might cause you mental anguish or economic harm of $500 or more, I am criminally liable, up to a year in jail. And that's for using not just your name, not your Social Security number, not your address, but anything that could lead someone to that."
The bill passed on March 6 in a 52–1 vote. The bill defines doxing as a crime that occurs when a "person intentionally posts another person's personally identifying information without their consent and does so with reckless disregard for whether the information would be reasonably likely to be used by another party to cause the person whose information is posted to be placed in reasonable fear of stalking, serious bodily injury or death to oneself or a close relation, or to suffer a significant economic injury or mental anguish as a result therefrom."
According to the bill, prohibited personal information includes anything from posting a person's name, birthday, workplace, "religious practices of affiliation," and "life activities" to their biometric data or a "sexually intimate or explicit visual depiction." As a result, the bill is incredibly overbroad in terms of what speech it prohibits.
"So if I said 'Emma Camp is a crappy journalist,' yes, that makes me liable under law. But if I just said 'there's a lady at Reason I don't like,' that could also do. That's crazy," said Fleischman. "This is a law that has a million bad applications and maybe one good one."
Fleishman isn't the only one concerned that the bill violates the First Amendment.
"The idea that you could post something online and then someone else might act on that kind of just information, including someone's name, and you can be blamed for it criminally is certainly unconstitutional and would certainly chill speech," says Greg Gonzalez, legislative counsel at the Foundation For Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment group. "We understand that there are times where information can be used for nefarious means, but there are already laws on the books that can be used to go after criminals."
Unfortunately, the bill seems poised to pass, though it seems likely that it will face a legal challenge should it be signed into law.
The post Georgia Antidoxing Bill Could Criminalize Everyday Criticism appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
28 minutes ago
- NBC News
Iraq and Afghanistan veteran launches Democratic campaign against Sen. Susan Collins in Maine
Graham Platner, a 40-year-old Army and Marine veteran who served four combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, launched his campaign for the Senate in Maine on Tuesday, joining a growing Democratic primary field seeking to take on Republican Sen. Susan Collins. Platner, an oyster farmer who was born and raised in Sullivan, Maine, will run on a platform of universal health care, housing affordability and ending U.S. involvement in foreign wars. 'I feel an obligation to protect this place and protect the people in it,' Platner said in an interview. Platner joins a growing Democratic primary field that features Jordan Wood, a former chief of staff to former Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., and David Costello, who challenged independent Sen. Angus King last year. Democratic Gov. Janet Mills has said she is considering getting into the contest, while Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, has opted against joining the budding primary in what, on paper, might look like Democrats' best opportunity to flip a Senate seat in 2026. Collins is the only Republican senator who represents a state Kamala Harris carried in the last presidential election. But she has proven a tough opponent in blue Maine. In her last campaign, in 2020, she beat Democratic opponent Sarah Gideon by more than 8 percentage points, even as Donald Trump lost Maine by more than 9 points. Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, meaning Democrats would need to flip four seats in the 2026 midterms to take the majority. Platner said his experience in the military helped shape his political perspective as he prepared his campaign. 'When I joined the Marine Corps, I joined up because I really, truly believed in the American project,' he said. 'I wanted to fight for something I loved and that I thought was good in Iraq and Afghanistan. I watched both failed policies, failed strategies, failed tactics being used over and over and over again.' 'There's a point where you have to start asking yourself what is the point of this,' he added. 'Why are you doing this? And when I went back as a security contractor in 2018, what I began to realize is that I was just watching vast amounts of taxpayer money getting put into the pockets of defense contractors, of security contractors, of this whole apparatus that almost seemed to exist merely to take taxpayer money and put it into somebody's private bank account. And in seeing that up close for a while, it turned me into a deeply, deeply cynical and angry guy. From that I began to kind of look at our larger political system, our larger economic system, and you just begin to see the same exact thing.' Platner is seeking to connect with working-class voters who've migrated toward the GOP in recent cycles. He pointed to Golden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., as figures offering hope for the Democratic Party nationally and in his state. 'If we focus primarily on fighting for working-class values, fighting for policies that help working-class people, clawing back a lot of the power that has been consolidated in the kind of higher establishment-class politics, I think if you stick to that stuff, you can win,' Platner said. 'And getting dragged into many of these minor culture war fights is not remotely the answer.' 'I don't just identify with the more of the left parts of the party. People like Jared Golden are doing an excellent job. That's why he's been able to hold on to a Democratic seat in a Trump district,' Platner said. In his launch video, Platner excoriated 'billionaires and corrupt politicians profiting off and destroying our environment, driving our families into poverty and crushing the middle class,' saying his military experience made him unafraid to 'name an enemy, and the enemy is the oligarchy.' 'I'm not fooled by this fake charade of Collins' deliberations and moderation,' he said.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Courts keep shredding campaign finance laws. It's time to amend the Constitution.
Advertisement Things weren't always this bad. Generations ago, voters demanded laws to reduce the power of special interests, curtail corruption, and ensure that every citizen could speak freely and had equal representation. But over time, the Supreme Court has taken a sledgehammer to those safeguards. The crusade began in the mid-1970s with a case called Buckley v. Valeo, in which the Supreme Court invented a new legal theory: Individuals are entitled, under the First Amendment, to freely spend money to influence election outcomes, no matter how extravagant or obviously corrosive. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The idea that the First Amendment's free speech guarantee applies to money in politics isn't grounded in the text of the Constitution. Nevertheless, over the past 50 years, lawyers and judges have pushed that 'money equals free speech' doctrine to its absolute limits, dismantling basic anticorruption measures and enabling an elite class of big spenders to consolidate political power. In 2010, the Supreme Court unleashed a new flood of anonymous 'dark money' with its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which held that individuals and corporate interests can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. This July, the United States Court of Appeals in Boston Advertisement The consequences for American freedom and self-government have been grave. It's no wonder that nearly Despite the overwhelming demand for change, no meaningful legislation can survive the current judicial precedent. The Supreme Court has decided that almost any policy meant to level the playing field is inherently unconstitutional. That means there is only one way to end the corruption crisis: We must unite citizens and lawmakers around a constitutional amendment. Related : Nearly a decade ago, I cofounded American Promise, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based in Concord. In the years since, we have built a national movement behind the how legislators should fix the problem. Rather, it gives Americans and our elected officials the freedom to do whatever makes sense for their states, such as more effective disclosure requirements, Advertisement Americans have already amended our founding document 27 times, often to correct an injustice. In fact, the 19th Amendment was eventually adopted in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Minor v. Happersett in 1874, which ruled that the 14th Amendment did not provide women the equal right to vote. The 19th Amendment effectively overruled the Supreme Court's decision by explicitly stating that women have the right to vote. The same would hold true for this new constitutional amendment, which would clarify that the First Amendment should not be interpreted to mean that money is synonymous with free speech when it comes to our elections. Together, these reforms would transform our political system for the better. Lawmakers could spend far less time fundraising and more time engaging with their constituents, preparing for hearings, and developing new legislation. The electoral incentives would also shift, and voters, for their part, could expect more competitive primary elections; better candidates with more diverse skills and experiences; and, over time, less ideological extremism. Many state lawmakers and their constituents want to reduce the influence of money and outside spending in their elections but are repeatedly thwarted when they take action. Just days after a federal court struck down Maine's election-security law, another federal judge invalidated a popular Maine law that limited donations to super PACs. Similarly, when Alaska sought to limit out-of-state contributions, federal judges struck down those efforts, citing First Amendment concerns. These outcomes are a key reason why many states are calling on Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to restore their ability to regulate campaign finance. In the early years of American Promise, people questioned whether a constitutional amendment was realistic. After all, it's a grueling process. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They also need to win the support of 38 state governments. But momentum is on our side. Advertisement A new revolution is underway, and we have a once-in-a-generation chance to deliver on the founding promise of this country: a government by the people, for the people. It won't be easy. After all, we are fighting the most powerful forces in the world — but we have been in this situation before, and we have emerged victorious.
UPI
3 hours ago
- UPI
Federal appeals court blocks West Texas A&M drag ban
An appeals court Monday blocked West Texas A&M from enforcing its ban on drag shows amid litigation. File Photo by Terry Schmitt/UPI | License Photo Aug. 19 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court barred West Texas A&M University from enforcing a ban on drag shows on campus, overruling a lower court's decision that said drag shows did not necessarily enjoy First Amendment protections. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of the LGBTQ+ Spectrum WT student group and two of its student leaders who sued the school in March 2023, after university president Walter Wendler unilaterally canceled their then-upcoming charity drag show by arguing such performances were comparable to blackface and against his religious beliefs. The appeals court ruling puts a hold on Wendler's ban, allowing the student group to host drag shows on campus amid litigation. "FIRE is pleased that the Fifth Circuit has halted President Wendler's unconstitutional censorship and restored the First Amendment at West Texas A&M," JT Morris, supervising senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which filed the lawsuit, said in a statement. "This is a victory not just for Spectrum WT, but for any public university students at risk of being silenced by campus censors." In March 2023, Spectrum WT was planning a drag show for adults on West Texas A&M University to raise money for the Trevor Project, an LGBTQ+ suicide prevention and crisis intervention nonprofit -- but was barred from hosting the event by Wendler, who issued a ban on drag shows. In a March 21, 2023, letter to students, Wendler stated he believes humans are created in God's image and that drag shows do not preserve human dignity. "As a performance exaggerating aspects of womanhood (sexuality, femininity, gender), drag shows stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others and discriminate against womanhood," he said. "Drag shows are derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny, no matter the stated intent," he continued. "Such conduct runs counter to the purpose of WT." Spectrum WT then sued the school and held its performance off campus. Before the court, Wendler argued that drag shows are not express conduct protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, and that drag shows should be restricted due to lewd conduct. In September, the lower court agreed with Wendler that not all drag shows are inherently expressive and entitled to First Amendment protections, finding Wendler was right to cancel the performance because of "potential lewdness." Writing on behalf of the majority, Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick, a President George W. Bush appointee, said the district court erred by concluding the student group was not likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment argument. "Because theatrical performances plainly involve expressive conduct within the protection of the First Amendment, and because we find that plaintiffs' drag show is protected expression, discrimination among such shows must pass strict scrutiny," Southwick said in the ruling. "President Wendler did not argue, either before the district court or on appeal, that restricting the intended drag show would survive strict scrutiny." Southwick also found that the group suffered ongoing irreparable injury to their free speech First Amendment rights as Wendler had canceled their planned show and would permit no future shows going forward. Circuit Judge James Ho, a Trump appointee, in dissent agreed that drag shows are not inherently expressive and that if universities allow men to act as women in campus events, such as drag shows, "they may feel compelled to allow men to act as women in other campus events as well -- like women's sports." "What a university allows in an auditorium, it might have to allow on an athletic field, too." UPI has contacted West Texas A&M University for comment.
