3 ms·

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.