Committee advances amended harassment provision aimed at doxing; criminal penalties retained

The House Judiciary Committee moved House Bill 1134 forward on a vote to give the amended harassment provision what proponents called a clearer statutory home for doxing and similar online conduct.

The committee approved an amendment that adds a subdivision to section 12.1-1701 on harassment to make it an offense when, "with intent to frighten or harass another person... the person communicates in writing by electronic communication or by electronically publishing, posting, or otherwise disclosing information to the public to a public Internet site or public forum, an individual's personal identifying information." Chairman Clamine presented the amendment and summarized its scope.

Why it matters: lawmakers said the change narrows a broader original bill to fit within the state's harassment statute and creates a criminal charge that can be used where doxing or publication of private identifying information is done with intent to harass or frighten. Supporters said the amendment aligns statutory language with digital communications; some members worried the penalty level could be disproportionate.

Committee debate centered on wording and penalty level. Representative Olson said the draft "feels like it's awfully... a clumsy way of saying it," but deferred to counsel. Representative Vetter objected to a proposed deletion in subsection 2 (referred to in committee as the "or e" language), arguing that removing that language would lower the penalty class; she said she believed that deletion would make the offense a Class B misdemeanor instead of a Class A. Chairman Clamine and others explained the amendment was drafted in consultation with the attorney general's office and intended to be codified as an additional harassment subdivision.

Two procedural proposals were considered. Representative Vetter moved to replace the bill with the attorney general's amendment but exclude the words "or e" in subsection 2; that motion failed on a 5-7-2 vote. Later, Representative Wolff moved to pass the attorney general's amendment as written; that motion carried on an 11-1-2 roll call. A subsequent motion for a "do pass" recommendation on House Bill 1134 as amended passed 10-1 with three members absent; Representative Van Winkle agreed to serve as bill carrier for the bill.

Clarifying details discussed in committee included the proposed penalty and statute reference. The amendment as read in committee presented the offense as a Class A misdemeanor; during discussion there was some uncertainty in the transcript about the fine amount (members exchanged "3000. Oh, 5 what is it? 5000? 3000"). Representative Vetter and others noted that removing certain language would change the penalty classification to a Class B misdemeanor.

The committee did not take up additional changes to the text beyond the amendment on the table; members said the amendment came from the attorney general's office (through counsel) and reflected consultations with Representative Heilman. No final effective date was stated. The committee record shows the measure will proceed to the next step with a bill carrier assigned.

Votes at a glance: the motion to replace the bill with the amendment excluding subsection 2(e) failed (5 yes, 7 no, 2 absent). The motion to adopt the attorney general's amendment as written carried (11 yes, 1 no, 2 absent). The motion for a do-pass recommendation on House Bill 1134 as amended carried (10 yes, 1 no, 3 absent).