SB 27, the “Georgia Anti-Doxing Act,” creates new criminal offenses for doxing and aggravated doxing within Georgia’s invasion-of-privacy laws. The bill defines doxing as intentionally posting another person’s personally identifiable information without consent, with reckless disregard that the post could cause fear of stalking, serious bodily injury, or death, or could cause significant economic injury or mental anguish. Aggravated doxing is a higher-level offense where the poster acts with the intent to cause those harms and the victim actually suffers them.
The bill specifies what counts as personally identifiable information, including a residence or address, location, employer, prior legal name, Social Security number, phone number, and likely future location. It also defines “post” broadly to include dissemination through social media, email, or text message. The measure includes exceptions for reporting criminal activity, reporting conduct reasonably believed to be unlawful, and lawful constitutionally protected speech, assembly, and petition activity. It also states that it should not be construed to conflict with the First Amendment, the Georgia Constitution, federal Section 230, or Section 1983.
In terms of penalties, a first doxing offense is a misdemeanor, while repeat doxing becomes a felony punishable by one to two years in prison, a fine of at least $5,000, or both. Aggravated doxing is a felony punishable by two to five years in prison, a $5,000 fine, or both, with enhanced penalties for repeat convictions. If aggravated doxing results in serious bodily injury or death, the offender may be punished as a party to the crime. The bill also sets venue and jurisdiction rules, making the offense prosecutable where the post originated, was received, or where the victim resides.
The bill’s impact is to expand Georgia criminal law by adding a specific anti-doxing framework to the state’s privacy and stalking-related statutes. It would give prosecutors a new tool to address online publication of personal information when tied to threats, fear, or economic harm, while also creating explicit carveouts intended to protect lawful reporting and protected expression. The effective date is July 1, 2025, and it applies only to offenses committed on or after that date.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears strongly favorable, with the Senate passing the substitute version 52-1. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate summary here, but the near-unanimous vote suggests broad support for the bill’s anti-harassment and victim-protection goals. The main point of contention likely centers on balancing privacy and safety protections against free-speech concerns, especially because the bill regulates online publication of information and includes constitutional carveouts to address those concerns.
SB 27 amends Georgia’s invasion-of-privacy code by adding new offenses for doxing and aggravated doxing, along with definitions, penalties, jurisdiction rules, and exceptions. It affects individuals who post personally identifiable information without consent, and it creates misdemeanor and felony liability depending on intent, harm, and repeat offenses. The bill also interacts with related areas of law, including stalking, criminal procedure, First Amendment protections, federal communications law, and civil rights law, while expressly preserving lawful reporting and protected expressive activity.
The available voting history indicates strong support for the bill, with the Senate approving the substitute version 52-1. That margin suggests the legislation was broadly viewed as a response to online harassment and threats, and as a way to protect victims from fear, financial harm, and emotional distress. Because no committee transcript is available, the record does not show detailed floor or committee debate, but the inclusion of multiple constitutional and statutory carveouts suggests lawmakers were attentive to concerns about overbreadth and free speech.
The likely area of contention is the line between punishing harmful doxing and protecting lawful speech, journalism, activism, and public-interest reporting. Critics could argue that the bill’s broad definitions of personally identifiable information, posting, and mental anguish might chill speech or be difficult to apply consistently, while supporters would emphasize the need to deter online harassment, stalking-related threats, and real-world harm. The bill attempts to address these concerns by excluding protected activity and stating that it does not conflict with the First Amendment, Section 230, or Section 1983.