Fact check: What are the laws against doxxing in the United States as of 2025?

1. Summary of the results

The laws against doxxing in the United States as of 2025 are still evolving, with proposed legislation such as the Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act (S.1952) aiming to protect federal law enforcement officers from doxxing by criminalizing the intentional release of their personal information with the intent to obstruct justice or immigration enforcement ^[1]. This act, introduced by Senator Marsha Blackburn, would make it illegal to publish the name of a federal law enforcement officer with the intent to obstruct a criminal investigation or immigration operation, and violators would face a fine and/or imprisonment of five years ^[2]. Several states have also taken legislative action to criminalize or deter doxxing, including Virginia, Kentucky, California, Oregon, and Ohio ^[3]. However, first amendment groups have expressed opposition to the bill, arguing that it could stifle free speech and be used to chill newsgathering and reporting that is in the public interest ^[4]. The use of technology has escalated the threats of doxxing and swatting, enabling bad actors to target individuals with unprecedented precision and anonymity ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

A key missing context in the original statement is the potential impact on free speech, as highlighted by first amendment groups and the ACLU of Illinois, who argue that the proposed legislation could be used to chill newsgathering and reporting that is in the public interest ^[5]. Additionally, the case of a PhD student who was arrested and jailed for documenting an ICE raid, despite the First Amendment protecting the right to record law enforcement in public, raises concerns about the balance between officer safety and community trust ^[5]. The analyses also highlight the need for coordination between states and the importance of technological literacy in legislative design ^[3]. Furthermore, the role of technology in escalating threats, including the use of AI-generated voices in fraudulent emergency calls, is a crucial aspect that needs to be considered in the development of laws against doxxing ^[3].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement may be misleading in its assumption that there are existing laws against doxxing in the United States, when in fact, the legislation is still proposed and not yet enacted ^[1]. The statement also lacks context about the potential impact on free speech and the concerns of first amendment groups, which could be influenced by the interests of law enforcement ^[4]. The sources cited, including those from law enforcement and government agencies, may have a bias towards protecting officer safety, while neglecting the importance of community trust and free speech ^[4]. Additionally, the statement does not account for the evolving nature of doxxing and swatting, which requires continuous updates to legislation to address the growing use of technology to facilitate these attacks ^[3].