Anti-Doxxing legislation is vexing in several state legislatures, including Mississippi

• Columnist Sid Salter writes that the rush to enact anti-doxxing legislation presents serious constitutional concerns.

In 2019, Mississippi adopted legislation and then-Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law House Bill 1205 – authored by Reps. Jerry Turner and Mark Baker – that asserted privacy rights at the intersection of technology, privacy and political lanes.

At the signing of the legislation, Bryant said: “In recent years, charitable donations have been weaponized by certain groups against individuals in order to punish donors whose political beliefs differ from their own. I was pleased today to sign House Bill 1205, which protects the free speech rights of Mississippians who generously make charitable contributions.”

Bill sponsors state Reps. Jerry Turner and Mark Baker wrote in an opinion piece published in The Washington Times that “most importantly, this law protects those who might have their private information targeted and revealed without their consent” and “providing restitution will rightfully combat the efforts of those interested in making your information public.”

Despite warnings of First Amendment concerns from some reputable national groups, Mississippi was an early adopter of such legislation. By 2024, some 20 states joined Mississippi in adopting the privacy legislation.

In the interim came the rise of something called “doxxing.” The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) defines doxxing as “refers to the intentional release of an individual’s personal identifying information without the person’s permission, usually with the intent to retaliate or intimidate. This personal information could include home addresses, social security numbers, and names of employers.”

FIRE notes that doxxing “has taken on a broader, even amorphous meaning. Much of what gets labeled “doxxing” today constitutes protected counter-speech or otherwise lawful conduct.

But the most egregious example of doxxing came in a dispute when a doxxing episode turned into a deadly related next step called “swatting.”  Swatting happens when false reports are turned in to law enforcement agencies who often respond with heavily armed police SWAT units.

In this instance, Mark Herring, 60, had a Twitter handle (@Tennessee) that teenager Shane Sonderman and a minor accomplice wanted. Herring was tormented with harassing calls, text messages and false delivery attempts by the pair and did not relinquish the Twitter handle.

But in April 2020 a police SWAT team responded to a fake murder report at Herring’s home. Guns drawn; the SWAT team stormed the Herring property. Herring, said by family members to be “frightened and confused” in an interview with NBC News, went outside his home to face the armed officers and suffered a massive, fatal heart attack.

Shane Sonderman was sentenced to five years in jail in the case, in which it was established that he had targeted at least five people across the country trying to gain ownership of social media handles that he wished to possess and sell.

Fast forward from the 2019 legislation Bryant signed. In the 2025 session, Senate Bill 2821 authored by Sen. Jeremy England, was styled as “the “Law Enforcement Anti-Doxxing Act of 2025.” The bill passed the Senate and was sent to the House, where it died in the House Judiciary “A” Committee.

Georgia lawmakers are stalled over similar legislation this session. In Georgia, the bill defines doxxing as a crime when a “person intentionally posts another person’s personally identifying information without their consent and does so with reckless disregard for whether the information would be reasonably likely to be used by another party to cause the person whose information is posted to be placed in reasonable fear of stalking, serious bodily injury or death to oneself or a close relation, or to suffer a significant economic injury or mental anguish as a result therefrom.”

According to the bill, prohibited personal information includes anything from posting a person’s name, birthday, workplace, “religious practices of affiliation,” and “life activities” to their biometric data or a “sexually intimate or explicit visual depiction.”

FIRE weighed in on why some lawmakers struggle with the new laws: “Doxxing may appear unseemly and unsavory. It may cause some discomfort and/or distress. But the rush to enact anti-doxxing legislation presents serious constitutional concerns. Many of the laws are too broad, potentially covering whistleblower activity and speech on matters of public concern, and don’t comport with fundamental First Amendment principles. And much of the offending conduct is already covered by existing law.”