Georgia Antidoxing Bill Could Criminalize Everyday Criticism
The bill is a "law against criticism of any kind," according to a lawyer who testified against it.

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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I suggest people read the whole article. Should make for a good laugh, I won't spoil it.
Does it get better or worse than reading:
'The bill is a "law against criticism of any kind," according to a lawyer who testified against it.' and interpreting it as "Lawyer openly commits to using the law to punishing his critics whether that's the letter, spirit, or intent or not."?
Emma Camp is a crappy journalist
- Emma Camp.
Yup, definitely the highlight of 2025.
Just ban all "social" media.
Use the same logic that allows infringements of the second amendment.
For The Children!
It makes sense that if it is ok to require a federal background check to own something that is a fundamental right, you could require a background check to be allowed online.
You didn't complain when Democrats did it you hypocrite.
FOAD hypocrite fucktard.
Neither Andrew Fleishman nor Emma Camp have actually read the bill, it would seem.
Yes it would seem like that, wouldn't it? I'm not sure where I would come down if I read it, but I am guessing based on the fact that it passed 52–1 in a purple state means it's slightly less menacing than Emmadear and some P.O.S. lawyer would like me to believe.
"The bill is a "law against criticism of any kind," Andrew Fleishman, a criminal defense attorney who testified against the bill, told Reason."
The law is against releasing another person's personal identification information, not "criticism". The lawyer quoted seems to taking an absurdly expansive view of what personal identification and what harm done by releasing such information could be considered to include anything.
I suppose if you are inherently dishonest shill looking for the main chance...right, lawyer, that explains it.
What we really need is an antioxidant bill.
""So if I said 'Emma Camp is a crappy journalist,' yes, that makes me liable under law."
1) If the lawyer ACTUALLY said this, he should be disbarred. The comment provides no info Emma does not provide herself.
2) It would be true.
But if I just said 'there's a lady at
ReasonReason I don't like,' that could also do.1) All of a sudden, not only is "lady" is back to being a personally identifiable characteristic rather than an abstract social construct, but so is Reason.
2) She's no lady.
2) She's no lady.
She's my wife.
Take her, please!
I'll take "we're going to interpret this in the worst way possible" for 500, Alex.
Didn't Georgia and a bunch of other slave States have a bunch of White Camelia lodges where everyone dressed up in masks and sheets to meet--anonymously, of course--at Klaverns? What penalties would this law impose for, say, Muthaslammer suddenly pulling Vinnie's mask off his pin in the middle of a public parade?
Yeah and that whole Comstock Act thing with all of the girlbulliers. Thank God for the Libertarian spoiler votes. And those masked Klaverns, don't get me started. Thankfully we don't let Antifa and Hamas enthusiasts get away with that shit.
Really don't see a problem with this law unless there's a lot more here than described. Pretty much every law can be abused by corrupt prosecutors and ambulance chasers but this doesn't look like the best choice.
So, inquiring minds want to know whether I can post someone's personal information online from the Pacific Coast and be charged with a violation of this law in Georgia and be extradited there for trial.
"The bill is a "law against criticism of any kind," according to a lawyer who testified against it."
Sort of like when Biden tried to start his own Ministry of Truth a while back only to be rejected by the sane.
Extreme right wingers and left wingers brook no criticism and will do everything in their power they don't get criticized.