If you think this is going to primarily be used to hold rich and powerful people to account for intimidating the less fortunate and well-connected, I think you'

If you think this is going to primarily be used to hold rich and powerful people to account for intimidating the less fortunate and well-connected, I think you're going to be surprised. Personally I expect it's far more likely to be used in precisely the opposite way, when it's used at all. Then again the most likely outcome is eventual challenge on free speech grounds, which will probably prevail because as the article points out: > Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Eugene Democrat and prosecutor, said it’s already a crime to threaten serious physical harm and alarm to others through the state’s harassment statute or to incessantly harass a person by calling them, as laid out in the state’s telephonic harassment law. What Senate Bill 1121 does is make it a crime for the person who encourages others to do that harm through doxxing, Prozanski said. IMO doxxing is a TOS issue for platforms to manage, not something that requires legislation. Because again, putting aside the historical interpretation of Becket's murder, it didn't involve doxxing, and what it did involve would already be criminal today. tl;dr The solution to lax moderation by incompetent and greedy companies is not to shift the burden onto the taxpayer and over-burdened legal system, with a callous disregard for existing law.