Fact check: Can individuals be charged with doxxing for sharing public information in the United States?

1. Summary of the results

The question of whether individuals can be charged with doxxing for sharing public information in the United States is complex and multifaceted. According to ^[1], while there is no comprehensive federal law against doxxing, certain individuals such as elected officials, government employees, jurors, and witnesses are protected under federal law from having their personal information released with the intent to threaten or intimidate ^[1]. Additionally, many states have their own anti-doxxing laws, which vary in scope and application ^[1]. However, as noted by ^[2], doxxing laws can conflict with the First Amendment, as they may criminalize the publication of truthful information ^[2]. The Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act, discussed in ^[3] and ^[3], aims to criminalize the intentional release of a federal officer's name to obstruct criminal or immigration enforcement, but it does not explicitly address the sharing of public information ^[3]. Key points to consider include the distinction between public and private information, the intent behind sharing such information, and the potential impact on free speech.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

A crucial aspect missing from the original statement is the definition of doxxing and its legal implications. As explained by ^[4], doxxing is a form of harassment that involves publicly exposing someone's private information without their consent ^[4]. However, the line between public and private information can be blurry, and the intent behind sharing such information can significantly impact its legality. Furthermore, alternative viewpoints, such as those presented by ^[2] and ^[2], highlight the tension between anti-doxxing laws and the First Amendment, arguing that many such laws are overly broad and may infringe upon protected speech ^[2]. Other important considerations include the potential chilling effect of doxxing on public service, as noted by ^[5] and ^[5], and the need for guidance on how to protect oneself against doxxing, as provided by ^[4]. Some of the key points to consider from different viewpoints include:

• The importance of protecting public servants' personal information, as emphasized by ^[5] and ^[5]
• The need to balance anti-doxxing laws with the protection of free speech, as argued by ^[2] and ^[2]
• The distinction between public and private information, and the intent behind sharing such information, as discussed by ^[1] and ^[2]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement may be misleading in implying that sharing public information can always be considered doxxing. As noted by ^[1], federal law only protects certain individuals from having their personal information released with the intent to threaten or intimidate ^[1]. Additionally, many states have their own anti-doxxing laws, which may not necessarily apply to the sharing of public information ^[1]. The statement may benefit those who seek to restrict free speech under the guise of preventing doxxing, while potentially harming individuals who rely on the sharing of public information for journalistic, academic, or other purposes. It is essential to consider the potential biases and motivations behind the original statement, including:

• The potential for overly broad anti-doxxing laws to infringe upon protected speech, as argued by ^[2] and ^[2]
• The interests of public servants and government employees in protecting their personal information, as emphasized by ^[5] and ^[5]
• The need for clear guidance on what constitutes doxxing and how to protect oneself against it, as provided by ^{[4] [4]}