logo
Georgia Antidoxing Bill Could Criminalize Everyday Criticism

Georgia Antidoxing Bill Could Criminalize Everyday Criticism

Yahoo14-03-2025

Will publishing someone's name or workplace online soon be illegal in Georgia? Last week, the state Senate overwhelmingly voted to pass an antidoxing bill that would punish a wide range of common online speech by up to a year in jail. While the bill aims to protect individuals from having sensitive information—like their Social Security numbers or addresses—published without their consent, it goes far beyond such private information.
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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

CBS blasts Trump's lawsuit as ‘meritless' despite recent $15 million settlement offer
CBS blasts Trump's lawsuit as ‘meritless' despite recent $15 million settlement offer

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

CBS blasts Trump's lawsuit as ‘meritless' despite recent $15 million settlement offer

CBS attorneys blasted President Donald Trump's lawsuit as "meritless" on Monday despite recently offering $15 million to make it go away. Trump is seeking $20 billion from CBS News and its parent company, Paramount Global, for what he alleged was election interference with how the network edited its interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris before the presidential election. "CBS is up against the wall and is in the desperation zone. The last thing they want is for this case to go to trial," a source close to Trump told Fox News Digital. Trump Rejects Paramount's $15 Million Offer To Settle Cbs News Lawsuit, Demands Apology While the two sides have been in mediation in hopes of reaching a settlement, CBS lawyers have continued to simultaneously claim the lawsuit is bogus. "This is a meritless lawsuit," attorneys for CBS and parent company Paramount Global wrote Monday in a reply to Trump's motion to deny CBS' request to dismiss the lawsuit. Read On The Fox News App CBS suggested the plaintiff's opposition indicated it was targeting a news organization for "editorial decisions Plaintiffs dislike," and asked the court to dismiss Trump's amended complaint. "The chilling effect of Plaintiffs' meritless assault on the First Amendment compels dismissal now," CBS attorneys argued. Fox News Digital confirmed last month that Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle. He is seeking a larger payout and an apology from CBS News. "President Trump is committed to holding those who traffic in fake news, hoaxes, and lies to account. CBS and Paramount targeted the President in an attempt to harm his reputation while committing the worst kind of election interference and fraud in the closing days of the most important presidential election in history. President Trump will pursue this vital matter to its just and rightful conclusion," Trump attorney Ed Paltzik told Fox News Digital. Cbs News Staffers Rattled By Ceo's Abrupt Exit As Trump Lawsuit Looms Over Network The months-long legal saga stems from an exchange Harris had in October with "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker, who asked her why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't "listening" to the Biden administration. Harris was widely mocked for the "word salad" answer that aired in a preview clip of the interview on "Face the Nation." However, when Whitaker asked the same question during the primetime special, Harris had a different, more concise response. Critics at the time accused CBS News of editing Harris' "word salad" answer to shield the then-vice president from further backlash leading up to Election Day. Earlier this year, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr ordered CBS News to hand over the unedited transcript of the interview as part of its investigation into whether the network violated the FCC's "news distortion" policy after a complaint was filed. CBS had refused to release the unedited transcript when the controversy first began. '60 Minutes' Kamala Harris Interview At The Center Of Trump's Cbs Lawsuit Receives Emmy Nomination The released raw transcript and footage showed that both sets of Harris' comments came from the same response, but CBS News had aired only the first half of her response in the "Face the Nation" preview clip and aired the second half during the primetime special. In the months since, CBS News has faced ongoing turmoil. Shari Redstone, Paramount's controlling shareholder who is battling thyroid cancer, is in favor of settling the lawsuit with the president, but recused herself from settlement discussions. Media observers believe a settlement would pave the way for Paramount's planned merger with Skydance Media in hopes of preventing potential retribution by Trump's FCC, which has the authority to halt the multibillion-dollar transaction. Fox News Digital's Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this report. Original article source: CBS blasts Trump's lawsuit as 'meritless' despite recent $15 million settlement offer

U.S. Senators Pitch New Crypto Market Structure Framework as Hearing Approaches
U.S. Senators Pitch New Crypto Market Structure Framework as Hearing Approaches

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

U.S. Senators Pitch New Crypto Market Structure Framework as Hearing Approaches

Top U.S. senators have shared the outline of what they're after in the effort to establish rules of the road for domestic crypto markets, releasing a set of principles on Tuesday as they prepare to further hash out their intentions in an afternoon hearing. The crypto industry is excited about the recent progress of stablecoin legislation, but the legislation to set up the structure of fully regulated crypto activity is what the sector is most urgently awaiting. The chairman and three other Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee offered this framework, representing half of the team that would need to eventually clear a bill, which also must pass through the Senate Agriculture Committee. "These principles will serve as an important baseline for negotiations on this bill, and I'm hopeful my colleagues will put politics aside and provide long-overdue clarity for digital asset regulation,' said Chairman Tim Scott said in a statement, joined by Senators Thom Tillis, Bill Hagerty and Cynthia Lummis. The principles include setting up clear distinctions between digital securities and commodities and a shared regulatory structure that prevents an "all-encompassing" watchdog from emerging; establishing a "small package" of money-laundering protections that are "pro-innovation"; and encouraging the federal regulators to embrace "no-action guidance, sandboxes, safe harbors, coordination and appropriate application requirements." So far, the House of Representatives has been in the lead on market structure, clearing its Digital Asset Market Clarity Act through the two necessary committees on its way toward the House floor. But the Senate finished its first crypto priority by passing the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act last week, and it's now moving on to market structure. A 3 p.m. hearing of Lummis' digital assets subcommittee is set for Tuesday to discuss the market structure work. "While the European Union and Singapore have established clear regulations, the U.S. continues to sit on the sidelines while the digital asset industry seeks greener pastures," Lummis said in a statement. "That changes today." Meanwhile, crypto lobbyists are focused on the House's strategy for how it'll approach the two bills. It'll soon fix on one of three options: passing the GENIUS Act as-is, merging it with the House's own stablecoin legislation (which requires a second approval from the Senate) or packaging the stablecoin effort with the market structure bill as a single (significantly more complicated) piece of legislation. This same process will play out if the Senate pursues its own track for the market structure bill, rather than adopt the House's product. So far, both chambers have seen wide bipartisan support for the crypto initiatives, but Democrats have raised a number of objections rooted in illicit financial concerns, national security and their criticism of President Donald Trump's personal crypto in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Federal judge halts Trump's order to end collective bargaining rights for many federal workers
Federal judge halts Trump's order to end collective bargaining rights for many federal workers

CNN

time3 hours ago

  • CNN

Federal judge halts Trump's order to end collective bargaining rights for many federal workers

A federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely blocked President Donald Trump's effort to terminate the collective bargaining rights for more than a million federal employees. Judge James Donato of the US District Court in San Francisco granted the preliminary injunction requested by a coalition of unions whose members would be stripped of their collective bargaining rights under Trump's executive order. However, Donato's decision clashes with a May ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which lifted a different judge's block on Trump's order pertaining to another union's members. Donato, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said the unions that brought the case before him had 'demonstrated a serious question as to whether their First Amendment rights have been violated.' The judge said he was blocking the executive order pending a trial over the order's constitutionality. 'Plaintiffs have raised serious questions under the First Amendment that warrant further litigation,' he wrote, adding that the unions have shown they would face 'a strong likelihood of irreparable harm from the loss of their collective bargaining and allied rights.' The Trump administration has the option of appealing Donato's ruling to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue is Trump's unprecedented executive order from March that seeks to abolish multiple agencies' union contracts in the name of national security. It would apply to departments including State, Veterans Affairs and Justice, as well as smaller agencies such as the National Science Foundation and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The order is aimed at stopping federal unions who have 'declared war on President Trump's agenda,' according to a White House fact sheet. It claimed the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal workers' union, has filed many grievances to 'block Trump policies.' The unions, led by AFGE, argue that Trump's actions are retaliation and violate the right to engage in constitutionally protected speech. Also, the suit alleges the administration is attempting to apply the national security exemption to eliminate the rights of workers whose primary duties are not related to national security. Donato said in his 29-page ruling that the White House fact sheet was 'solid evidence of a tie between the exercise of First Amendment rights and a government sanction.' 'The Fact Sheet called out federal unions for vocal opposition to President Trump's agenda. It condemned unions who criticized the President and expressed support only for unions who toed the line. It mandated the dissolution of long-standing collective bargaining rights and other workplace protections for federal unions deemed oppositional to the President,' he wrote. Also, while Donato wrote he would not second guess the president's national security determinations, 'a claim of national security does not, of course, automatically negate the Constitution, particularly with respect to the First Amendment.' The ruling by Donato follows a defeat for federal workers in a separate lawsuit filed by the National Treasury Employees Union, which argued that Trump's directive would strip union rights from about two-thirds of its members and deprive it of critical union dues that are deducted from members' paychecks. The 2-1 order from the DC Circuit last month said that the NTEU had not shown that it would be irreparably harmed without a court order blocking the executive order. The panel's majority — made up of a President George H.W. Bush appointee and a Trump appointee — said the harms alleged by the union were 'speculative,' in part, because the Trump administration had directed agencies not to terminate collective bargaining agreements before litigation over the order concluded. A President Joe Biden appointee who dissented from the appellate decision said that self-imposed restriction showed the Trump administration would not be harmed if the preliminary injunction issued by the district judge was left in place.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store