Georgia lawmakers have just passed a new antidoxing bill that could send internet trolls to jail for sharing personal information online. The controversial legislation is raising alarm bells among free speech advocates who warn it might go too far. But if it stops leftist agitators getting people killed…might it be the best decision?
At a glance:
• Georgia’s Senate Bill 27 would make “doxxing” a crime, with penalties ranging from misdemeanor to felony charges
• The bill passed with an overwhelming 52-1 vote in the Georgia state Senate
• Several Republican lawmakers, including the bill’s sponsor John Albers, were victims of “swatting” attacks in December 2023
• Critics argue the bill is unconstitutionally broad and could criminalize everyday online criticism
• Victims could sue perpetrators for damages if they suffer monetary loss, physical harm, or are forced to change their lifestyle
Georgia Republicans Take Stand Against Online Harassment
Senate Bill 27, sponsored by Republican Senator John Albers, aims to criminalize the malicious sharing of personal information online – and stop leftist trolls in their tracks. The legislation comes after several Georgia lawmakers, including Albers himself, were victims of dangerous “swatting” incidents late last year.
The bill defines doxxing as maliciously publicizing private information online that causes fear or significant disruptions to someone’s life. First-time offenders would face misdemeanor charges, while repeat offenses or cases causing substantial harm could result in felony charges with 1-10 years imprisonment.
“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,” said Senator John Albers, the bill’s primary sponsor. The legislation received strong bipartisan support, passing the Georgia Senate with a 52-1 vote.
The personal nature of this bill became evident after multiple Republican senators were targeted by dangerous “swatting” attacks in December 2023. Senators Albers, Clint Dixon, and Kay Kirkpatrick all had emergency responders dispatched to their homes based on false reports of violence or hostage situations.
Protecting Citizens or Silencing Critics?
While the bill’s sponsors emphasize its protections for ordinary citizens, free speech advocates have raised serious concerns about its broad language. The legislation defines punishable offenses as sharing information “with malicious intent” that causes “substantial life disruption” – terms critics argue are dangerously vague.
“The bill is a ‘law against criticism of any kind’,” criminal defense attorney Andrew Fleishman told Reason. “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.”
The bill defines “substantial life disruption” broadly, including changing phone numbers, reducing internet use, altering daily routines, changing jobs, or losing over $500. Critics argue this sweeping definition could criminalize legitimate speech and violate First Amendment protections.
Senator Kay Kirkpatrick, who was herself a victim of swatting, defended the legislation, stating: “We’re living in a dangerous world, and I think this bill would help with that.” Republicans point out the bill includes specific language attempting to protect constitutionally protected speech.
What do our readers think?
