Proposed bill could make Doxxing illegal - The beginning of the end?

So, remember when we managed to put Nick Bate in Jail by posting his address on the site? Looks like we might have to find new ways to do it.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/29/online-safety-modernization-act-outlaws-doxxing-swatting/

"The legislation is a roadmap for Congress to address online safety and combat the rise in online crimes that disproportionately affect women and girls," says the press release for the bill. It specifically prohibits sextortion, swatting, doxxing and revenge porn, as well as provides training and resources for federal, state and local law enforcement to deal with these complex issues. The bill is supported by Facebook; it's not clear what other tech or social media companies are on board.

This isn't the first time Clark has proposed legislation concerning internet harassment crimes (she fell victim to swatting when she proposed an anti-swatting bill), but this new bill brings various different issues she's addressed under one umbrella. The bipartisan nature of the legislation makes it more likely that it will come to a full vote.

"The fact of the matter is, the laws governing sextortion, doxxing, and swatting were written when computers didn't fit in our pockets, phones were plugged into walls, and texting required a stamp," said Congresswoman Brooks. This bill would go a long way towards helping identify and prosecute crimes that our current laws just aren't currently equipped to deal with.

 

[Staffy]

It was a joke lol

Ah well it was too good to be true

 

[cuddle striker]

so it's going to be illegal for people to publicly post their own addresses? because publishing that information means it's... public information.

I understand swatting and revenge porn being illegal- improper use of police, attempted murder, etc and nonconsensual posting of images. those make sense.

but how can you make the sharing of already-consensually public information, illegal?

 

[CatParty]

Susan Brooks
1740 Front St Gary, Indiana
(219) 846-4437
FetLife account

It's not illegal yet though haha

I think the link may be broken

 

[AnOminous]

but how can you make the sharing of already-consensually public information, illegal?

You pretty much can't in the United States, because some fairly smart people set up our government, and one of the things they understood is morons who get elected to the government try to do stupid things. So they made a list of utterly stupid shit the government might try to do in the future, and put it in this thing called a Constitution, saying "nope you can't do that dumb shit" and it's worked pretty well so far.

 

[cuddle striker]

You pretty much can't in the United States, because some fairly smart people set up our government, and one of the things they understood is morons who get elected to the government try to do stupid things. So they made a list of utterly stupid shit the government might try to do in the future, and put it in this thing called a Constitution, saying "nope you can't do that dumb shit" and it's worked pretty well so far.

this is pretty much what I imagined and I'm not sure how they think they're going to control information that's been willingly made public, in any other way.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

You pretty much can't in the United States, because some fairly smart people set up our government, and one of the things they understood is morons who get elected to the government try to do stupid things. So they made a list of utterly stupid shit the government might try to do in the future, and put it in this thing called a Constitution, saying "nope you can't do that dumb shit" and it's worked pretty well so far.

D.C has been using the Constitution as rolling paper for a decade and a half now and the news media is demanding they abridge it even more.

 

[Piss Clam]

They don't actually care unless you dox a federal judge.

 

[WW 635]

They don't actually care unless you dox a federal judge.

Doesn't everyone already know who they are?

 

[Piss Clam]

Doesn't everyone already know who they are?

If you post their home address then you might get a visit. Of course you might also have to post something inciting like Hal Turner, but, for sure you'll get their attention. Then they will drop in the agitators to make sure it is inciting. That's how the FBI rolls.

 

[AnOminous]

If you post their home address then you might get a visit. Of course you might also have to post something inciting like Hal Turner, but, for sure you'll get their attention. Then they will drop in the agitators to make sure it is inciting. That's how the FBI rolls.

I think what Hal Turner did fell just barely on the side of what I'd consider free speech. The FBI felt differently, however, and Hal was convicted and sent to prison.

Suffice it to say, though, that posting the addresses of federal judges along with a statement like this will get you thrown in prison.

Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.

The context was replete with other similar statements. While not overtly threatening, the jury felt the context and totality of the conduct was sufficient to convict.

Any law against doxing, to be remotely constitutional, would have to be limited to circumstances where it was somehow threatening or otherwise encouraged actual, physical harm against the target. I fail to see the point of such a law in any event, because conduct of that sort is already illegal.

 

[Piss Clam]

I think what Hal Turner did fell just barely on the side of what I'd consider free speech. The FBI felt differently, however, and Hal was convicted and sent to prison.

Suffice it to say, though, that posting the addresses of federal judges along with a statement like this will get you thrown in prison.



The context was replete with other similar statements. While not overtly threatening, the jury felt the context and totality of the conduct was sufficient to convict.

Any law against doxing, to be remotely constitutional, would have to be limited to circumstances where it was somehow threatening or otherwise encouraged actual, physical harm against the target. I fail to see the point of such a law in any event, because conduct of that sort is already illegal.

He's back to broadcasting after a few years from being released. The guy is a informant.

 

[CWCchange]

Well voting information with your address and phone number is public in some states, so if it's bad for women, maybe they shouldn't vote.

 

[WW 635]

Well voting information with your address and phone number is public in some states, so if it's bad for women, maybe they shouldn't vote.

Once you're registered your info is published. It's best to not even register or not to update if you are because your government will dox the fuck out of you if you're American.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

They don't actually care unless you dox a federal judge.

So does this mean we should start doxxing federal judges now?

 

[Cthulu]

So does this mean we should start doxxing federal judges now?

Who says I haven't?

 

[AnOminous]

So does this mean we should start doxxing federal judges now?

It should be a felony to spell "dox" with two xes.

 

[ICametoLurk]

It should be a felony to spell "dox" with two xes.

It should only be spelled with three x'es.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

It should only be spelled with three x'es.

Why stop at three?

 

[Elwood P. Dowd]

If something like Suzy's Law gained zero traction, I fail to see how this will, either. Though the autistic REEEing about this sort of thing is much higher these days than it was in the halcyon days of 2003, so who knows.

 

[Elwood P. Dowd]

It should be a felony to spell "dox" with two xes.

Nah, that way you can instantly identify the Normie.