Law Illinois 'doxing' bill under consideration by lawmakers

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
SPRINGFIELD – A bill that would create a clear legal avenue for victims of “doxing” to seek damages and protections against their perpetrators passed unanimously out of a House committee Wednesday.
Doxing, as defined by House Bill 2954, occurs when an individual intentionally publishes another person’s private information, such as their social security number or home address, without their consent.

Additionally, for a doxing claim to be successful, the individual would have had to publish that information with the intent of harming the other person. In order for a claim to be justified, the victim would have to prove they faced a “substantial life disruption.”.
David Goldenberg, Midwest regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, testified at the committee in support of the legislation.

“HB 2954 fills a gap in current Illinois law,” Goldenberg said. “It grants doxing victims the ability to seek civil recourse from their attackers including monetary damages and any other form of relief under Illinois law.”
Oregon and Nevada have also passed anti-doxing laws and a similar bill is moving through the Washington state legislature.
The ACLU of Illinois currently opposes the bill, stating that the language needs to be “tightened” to earn the organization’s support.

“We do feel this language is overbroad and unconstitutional as drafted,” Angela Inzano, policy and advocacy strategist for ACLU of Illinois, said in an interview.
Inzano told the committee the ACLU wants to include amendments that would create exceptions for private information shared with the media, by whistleblowers and in legitimate protests. Additionally, they want to clarify language to protect private communication between two people where the information is not publicly posted, as well as information that is already publicly available.
While the ACLU and legislators involved with the bill are still actively working together, bill sponsor Rep. Jennifer Gong-Gershowitz, D-Glenview, said she’s not promising to include all their suggestions.
“The intent is not to limit constitutionally protected speech and I don’t think the language of this bill does that,” Gong-Gershowitz said. “The definition of doxing may include some publicly available information that would not necessarily require a hack to access. However, the semi-public nature of this information should not provide a blanket immunity for a malicious actor who wields an individual’s personal information as a tool to harass, threaten, intimidate and injure that person.”
Gong-Gershowitz added she believes the bill already is “narrowly crafted” but said she’s willing to continue conversations with ACLU Illinois.
Click to expand...

Illinois ACLU wants to carve out protection for journoscum too.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/politics/illinois-doxing-bill-under-consideration-lawmakers
Archive: https://archive.is/8EolV
 
Click to expand...
Let me guess:
Leftist leaking personal info of their targets will be okay
but not the other way around.
 
Inzano told the committee the ACLU wants to include amendments that would create exceptions for private information shared with the media, by whistleblowers and in legitimate protests.
Click to expand...
Translation: Doxing troons who traffick hormones to children is verboten. But ANTIFAgs colluding with journalists to intimidate anyone with an opinion they don't like is kosher.
 
"Additionally, for a doxing claim to be successful, the individual would have had to publish that information with the intent of harming the other person."
People posting dox info here are not posting it to fuck with the person, people post it because it is funny to see people make grandiose claims and then you find out they're living in Section 8 housing barely scraping by, or claiming they live places they don't. Toothless bill that likely would fail on first amendment grounds regardless.

The only kind of actions that would likely succeed under this would be someone posting something like
"Henry lives at 1234 XYZ Street, would be a shame if someone went there and lit it on fire."
 
Last edited:
It's funny that like 99% of all doxxing could be prevented if:

1) people didn't overshare on social media
2) if government entities didn't insist on putting all sort of personal information online
 
Oregon and Nevada have also passed anti-doxing laws and a similar bill is moving through the Washington state legislature.
Click to expand...
ACLU really isn't doing its fucking job, not that we assumed they would. Curious what the other ones look like.
Rent Tin said:
"Additionally, for a doxing claim to be successful, the individual would have had to publish that information with the intent of harming the other person."
People posting dox info here are not posting it to fuck with the person, people post it because it is funny to see people make grandiose claims and then you find out they're living in Section 8 housing barely scraping by, or claiming they live places they don't. Toothless bill that likely would fail on first amendment grounds regardless.

The only kind of actions that would likely succeed under this would be someone posting something like
"Henry lives at 1234 XYZ Street, would be a shame if someone went there and lit it on fire."
Click to expand...
You say that quite astutely, but let me suggest a problem with your interpretation.

Have you checked the Kiwifarms wiki page lately? Notice the mainstream "trusted source" articles about it? Lies though they may be, they aren't going anywhere.

I think it's entirely reasonable that some fucking heeb lawyer (realistically probably an NLG or ACLU lawyer) will make the argument, and dependent entirely on the judge, might do so successfully, that posting dox on the Kiwifarms is inherently with the intent to harm others. We all know this is bullshit, but a judge looks at the wiki page or some of Ben Collins lie filled handiwork, and yessir mister goldberg, three bags full of cash for your fucking lunatic of a client.
 
let me take a wild guess and say that the enforcement mechanism of this bill will mysteriously disappear when ANTIFA sends an army of lumpenproles to someone's house right?
 
Illinois ACLU wants to carve out protection for journoscum too.
Click to expand...
A bit cringe, but...
Inzano told the committee the ACLU wants to include amendments that would create exceptions for private information shared with the media, by whistleblowers and in legitimate protests. Additionally, they want to clarify language to protect private communication between two people where the information is not publicly posted, as well as information that is already publicly available.
Click to expand...
The full list of loopholes they want would water it down a lot. Particularly "information that is already publicly available". The private communication bit would let you launder the information to some foreigner who posts it publicly, and maybe you could even brag that you did it.

A state or two outlawing doxing won't do anything but catch a few Facebook boomers, and even then it could get overturned by the courts.

The "journoscum exception" could end up an excellent avenue of attack. Just start a Substack or Twitter account and declare yourself a journalist. You say I'm not a journalist? Take it up with SCOTUS.

“The definition of doxing may include some publicly available information that would not necessarily require a hack to access. However, the semi-public nature of this information should not provide a blanket immunity for a malicious actor who wields an individual’s personal information as a tool to harass, threaten, intimidate and injure that person.”
Click to expand...
"Semi-public" is fully retarded.
 
David Goldenberg, Midwest regional director of the Anti-Defamation League
Click to expand...
Which is this kike, in case you wanted to put a face to the name:
David-Goldenberg-e1557767712166.jpg
 
Inzano told the committee the ACLU wants to include amendments that would create exceptions for private information shared with the media, by whistleblowers and in legitimate protests.
Click to expand...

Holy fuck! They aren't even trying to hide it!
 
Doxing isn't so much the problem as the culture's lack of nuance. Should someone be canceled if they are found to be a child raping serial killer? Yes. Should someone be cancelled for just simply having a mediocre wrongthink opinion on the internet? No. I don't think anyone should be fired or banjacked just for saying well maybe the numbers in the Holocaust could have been exaggerated or Trump wasn't Satan incarnate or that maybe Fauci had ulterior motives or maybe that niggers should stop being niggers. I mean I am fine with some ANTIFA faggot screeching about how the coming revolution will be like totally done right this time guiz. I just want the ability to say, lol no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom