Fact check: What constitutes doxxing under US federal law as of 2025?

1. Summary of the results

The definition of doxxing under US federal law as of 2025 is not explicitly stated in the provided analyses, but it can be inferred that doxxing involves the intentional release of personal information to harm or intimidate ^[1]. According to some sources, doxxing refers to the non-consensual publication of private or identifying information intended to facilitate harm ^[2]. The Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act aims to make it illegal to publish the name of a federal law enforcement officer with the intent to obstruct a criminal investigation or immigration operation ^[1]. Other sources define doxxing as the malicious exposure of personal identifying information, often used to target individuals based on their identity or professional role ^[3]. The legal implications of doxxing are complex, and there are concerns about the potential conflicts between anti-doxxing laws and fundamental First Amendment principles ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Some key context missing from the original statement includes the historical evolution of doxxing and its transformation from isolated conduct to a more coordinated form of digital persecution ^[3]. Additionally, the original statement does not consider the potential conflicts between anti-doxxing laws and the First Amendment, which could lead to challenges in enforcing such laws ^[4]. Alternative viewpoints, such as the argument that existing laws already cover much of the unprotected expressive conduct often associated with doxxing, are also not represented in the original statement ^[4]. The sources also highlight the importance of technological literacy and inter-state coordination in addressing doxxing, which is not mentioned in the original statement ^[3]. Furthermore, the original statement does not account for the impact of doxxing on public servants, including federal officials, and its risks to their safety and the integrity of public service ^[5].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement may be misleading in its assumption that there is a clear definition of doxxing under US federal law as of 2025, when in fact, the sources suggest that the definition is complex and nuanced ^{[5] [1] [2]}. The statement may also be biased towards a particular perspective, such as the law enforcement perspective, without considering the potential implications for free speech and the First Amendment ^[4]. The sources imply that law enforcement officers and public servants may benefit from the introduction of anti-doxxing laws, while civil liberties organizations and free speech advocates may be concerned about the potential erosion of First Amendment rights ^[4]. Overall, the original statement may benefit from a more comprehensive and balanced consideration of the complex issues surrounding doxxing and its definition under US federal law ^{[5] [1] [2] [3] [4]}.