Kentucky approves bill to make 'doxing' illegal after Covington student's online backlash

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Kentucky approves bill to make 'doxing' illegal after Covington student's online backlash

March 7, 2019, 8:40 AM EST
By Associated Press

FRANKFORT, Ky. — Weeks after a Kentucky high school student says he was wrongly vilified for his interaction with a Native American protester, state lawmakers on Wednesday advanced a bill that would make it a crime to publish personal information of a child online with the intent to harass, abuse or frighten.

A Kentucky state Senate committee approved a bill to make "doxing" anyone under 18 a crime. If the bill becomes law, it would make it a misdemeanor to publish minors' personal information — such as a home address or the school they attend — to threaten them.

The proposal comes as social media companies are struggling to combat harmful content posted on their digital platforms that have real-world consequences.

"There are no brakes on Twitter," said Todd McMurtry, an attorney for 16-year-old Nick Sandmann, whose interaction with Native American protester Nathan Phillips went viral in January. "Twitter itself barely has the capacity to monitor its own activity. To put some weight back on the citizens so that they can help fight back when they are doxed would be great to make up for the fact that Twitter barely does anything."

-snip-

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kentucky-approves-bill-make-doxing-illegal-after-covington-student-s-n980416

[underpants]

1. So they didn't do this when the christian cake people doxed a kid?

Oh, was I not supposed to mention that?

[theboss]

2. It's what aboutism all the way down these days?

Do you agree with the law or not?

[underpants]

20. I just wanted to bring that up.

[brush]

17. And what jurisdiction would Kentucky have over someone in NY...

who doxxes a maga-kid?

Not much.

[NutmegYankee]

3. Nearly impossible to prosecute. Too easy to claim the intent was to inform.

And the state has the burden to prove otherwise.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Nope. A person posted or did not. "intent to inform" will not be an excuse.

Just like statutory rape does not consider intentions.

Your premise would be part of several problems if somebody tried to pass a law banning doxing of adults. But children are shielded in many ways by laws.

[NutmegYankee]

7. That would violate free speech. Harassment means continued efforts to annoy or scare.

A single person saying oh that’s this person is protected speech.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Free speech does not apply in all cases when children may suffer.

Free speech is not a defense for posting porn photos of children.

Probably a good idea to protect children from doxing too.

[NutmegYankee]

10. You are wrong, but it'll take some time for courts to prove that.

Have fun until then!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. How am I wrong? I have given two supportive examples in this thread and you don't explain yourself.

One example in the post you are replying to.

[NutmegYankee]

12. Read Senate Bill 240.

The law is written where a teen could commit a crime and someone posts it was (first name last name) that committed the crime. Now that is clearly protected speech. The law only applies if the state can prove “with the intent to intimidate, abuse, threaten, harass, or frighten a person under the age of eighteen (18) who resides in the Commonwealth.” The state has the burden to prove that. Your example of just making a post is free speech.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. OK, thanks. I get your thinking better now. I thought "doxing" was details like addresses, email, ph

Just a name is a bit of a stretch for "doxing". And now I see that "intent" is in the law so your line of reasoning becomes clearer.

But many jurisdictions, like Canada, very effectively have publication bans on even the name of the minor charged with a crime or victim of a crime.

If they simply wrote it such that the name of an accused minor is protected unless the court clears it, then they could make it stick.

However,the proposed law is overly broad if it applies to all children in all situations as it seems to do, not merely those accused of a crime or previously unreported names of victims of crime.

[NutmegYankee]

15. Media in the USA does something similar, though only as a professional standard.

Our Bill of Rights significantly reduces government oversight over the Press and speech, whereas Commonwealth countries like Canada has less stringent restrictions on government power over the press and speech. They both generally protect criticism of the government (expect arguing for a Republic in the Commonwealth case).

[NutmegYankee]

13. Your porn example wasn't relevant - SCOTUS has ruled that isn't protected speech. nt

[theboss]

21. I don't think so

There are exceptions to the first amendment.

No one here understands the first amendment though and they get mad when. I post about it.

[brush]

18. Kentucky has no jurisdiction over someone in another state.

[gratuitous]

6. I can imagine a free speech argument against the proposal, as well

This is an exceedingly difficult needle to thread.

[NutmegYankee]

8. It will be easily overcome in many cases.

A single isolated post would fail to prove intent.

[jberryhill]

19. Lots of crimes hinge on intent

Intent can be inferred from circumstances. It doesn't require a brain probe. And even if someone denies the relevant intent, a jury can find otherwise on circumstances.

That "intent is hard to prove" is a really common misconception.

[KT2000]

5. so this is based on the whitewash

that Covington and the rich parents set up? The kid is an entitled punk. I don't need to know his name because I saw his face (and the long vid).

[roamer65]

16. KY can go fuck itself.

If the alleged “doxing” happens via another state, there isn’t shit they can do about it.