Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cyber Harassment Doxxing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Students and civil‑rights groups back bill to ban doxxing of students; prosecutors, campus concerns discussed
Summary
Senate Bill 889 would create a misdemeanor offense for distributing personal identifying information about students with intent or reckless disregard that it will be used to harm them; student witnesses and civil‑rights groups urged passage while committee members probed First Amendment and enforcement issues.
Senate Bill 889 would prohibit distributing a student’s personal identifying information or images with intent, knowledge or reckless disregard that the information will be used to harm the student, Senator Shanika Henson told the Judicial Proceedings Committee on Feb. 26.
The measure would apply to students enrolled in secondary and postsecondary institutions and create a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine up to $5,000, proponents said. Henson framed the bill as building on Maryland’s existing cyberbullying statute (Grace’s Law) and closing gaps that leave college students without the protections provided to minors.
Supporters included civil‑rights groups, campus students and administrators. CARE (the Council on American‑Islamic Relations) and ACLU‑affiliated speakers cited incidents in which students — including Jewish, Muslim, Arab and other students — were targeted online with private information and death threats. Several students described being falsely accused of incidents, repeatedly harassed and doxxed; one student said the experience forced them to deactivate social media accounts and disrupted education and employment prospects.
Prosecutors and campus police representatives discussed enforcement complexity and evidentiary issues. Frederick County’s chief juvenile state’s attorney described a case in which a defendant created sexualized accounts using the names and photos of five girls; she said current identity‑theft law requires a financial‑gain element and does not address harms caused when a name and image are used for sexualized fraud.
Committee members asked how the bill would balance free‑speech protections and whether ordinary online disputes or student bullying would be captured. Supporters said the mens rea — intent or reckless disregard and actual harm caused — distinguishes wrongful doxxing from lawful speech; they also noted injunctive and criminal remedies intended to protect victims.
No committee vote was recorded. Proponents urged a favorable report and requested further technical drafting to clarify definitions of “personal identifying information,” “harm,” and the mens rea standard.
