3 ms·

New Jersey law bars doxxing campaigns against judges, prosecutors and police

8 points by yboris 6y ago

Miner49er 6y ago
I'm no lawyer, but isn't this unconstitutional due to the first amendment? Or is there some sort of precedent that allows this?
- giantg2 6y ago
  Not all speech is protected. If one is specifically releasing information for the purpose of having people harass someone, then that could be seen as criminal conspiracy. Of course, one should have to state or reasonably imply that intent. That doesn't stop the government though (I believe NJ decided that 3D printed gun blueprints are not protected speech). Now, I'm not saying this law specifies it this way of intent. If it did, then they could just use the conspiracy law to convict people when actual harassment occurs. Instead it looks like they decided to create a new (unnecessary) law that creates a privileged class of citizen with extra protections. Kind of like how red flag laws aren't necessary if you enforce existing laws - you charge someone when there is evidence that they made a threat or have plans to commit a crime. Or they could have stated that privacy is recognized as a right in NJ for all citizens. Then there would probably need to be a SCOTUS case at some point that determines the boundaries between that right under the 10th amendment and the right to free speech under the 1st.
- kodah 6y ago
  Doxxing is fairly contextual. It can be looked at via the lens of privacy (if your state has those laws), or assault and harassment if you're doing so when a mob is involved. It's like the nuance of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater. You knew there was a good potential for harm and if there isn't actually a fire then all that's left is malice.
giantg2 6y ago
If these individuals should be protected from being doxxed, then so should the rest of society. This specialized treatment is essentially a codified class system where some people recieve extra rights or protections, and can lead to the same kind of disenfranchised feelings that are fueling civil protest/unrest today. I doubt they have any good reason not to extend it to the rest of society.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  Laws have a cost to enforce. A kid getting doxxed in a video game is not on the same calibre as a judge getting doxxed in a drug case. For similar reasons, assaulting a transit worker is punished more harshly than assaulting a strap hanger. It is more frequent and more damaging, and thus merits specific disincentivisation (and prosecutorial lubrications).
  - giantg2 6y ago
    The penalties may be more severe depending on the circumstances, but that doesn't change one's rights. For example, assaulting a police officer in the performance of their duties might be aggravated assault, but a normal person would just be assault. The act itself is a crime, the victims both had harm done, but the grading is different. What this law says is that these protected people have a right to privacy, but the general population does not. This is not right, and I believe this is an equal protection violation.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    > Laws have a cost to enforce. A kid getting doxxed in a video game is not on the same calibre as a judge getting doxxed in a drug case. People still die from doxxing in video games. I don't see how the "calibre" is different. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting

8 points by yboris 6y ago

I'm no lawyer, but isn't this unconstitutional due to the first amendment? Or is there some sort of precedent that allows this?

giantg2 6y ago
Not all speech is protected. If one is specifically releasing information for the purpose of having people harass someone, then that could be seen as criminal conspiracy. Of course, one should have to state or reasonably imply that intent. That doesn't stop the government though (I believe NJ decided that 3D printed gun blueprints are not protected speech). Now, I'm not saying this law specifies it this way of intent. If it did, then they could just use the conspiracy law to convict people when actual harassment occurs. Instead it looks like they decided to create a new (unnecessary) law that creates a privileged class of citizen with extra protections. Kind of like how red flag laws aren't necessary if you enforce existing laws - you charge someone when there is evidence that they made a threat or have plans to commit a crime. Or they could have stated that privacy is recognized as a right in NJ for all citizens. Then there would probably need to be a SCOTUS case at some point that determines the boundaries between that right under the 10th amendment and the right to free speech under the 1st.
kodah 6y ago
Doxxing is fairly contextual. It can be looked at via the lens of privacy (if your state has those laws), or assault and harassment if you're doing so when a mob is involved. It's like the nuance of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater. You knew there was a good potential for harm and if there isn't actually a fire then all that's left is malice.

giantg2 6y ago

If these individuals should be protected from being doxxed, then so should the rest of society. This specialized treatment is essentially a codified class system where some people recieve extra rights or protections, and can lead to the same kind of disenfranchised feelings that are fueling civil protest/unrest today. I doubt they have any good reason not to extend it to the rest of society.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
Laws have a cost to enforce. A kid getting doxxed in a video game is not on the same calibre as a judge getting doxxed in a drug case. For similar reasons, assaulting a transit worker is punished more harshly than assaulting a strap hanger. It is more frequent and more damaging, and thus merits specific disincentivisation (and prosecutorial lubrications).
- giantg2 6y ago
  The penalties may be more severe depending on the circumstances, but that doesn't change one's rights. For example, assaulting a police officer in the performance of their duties might be aggravated assault, but a normal person would just be assault. The act itself is a crime, the victims both had harm done, but the grading is different. What this law says is that these protected people have a right to privacy, but the general population does not. This is not right, and I believe this is an equal protection violation.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  > Laws have a cost to enforce. A kid getting doxxed in a video game is not on the same calibre as a judge getting doxxed in a drug case. People still die from doxxing in video games. I don't see how the "calibre" is different. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting