Health Occupations - Pharmacists - Minor Conditions and HIV Prevention and Treatment (Rapid Testing and Preventive Care Act)
Summary
HB1150 creates a new criminal offense in Maryland for intentionally disseminating an individual’s personal identifying information or images on a public internet site or public forum when the individual is under 25 years old, if done without express permission and with intent to intimidate or harm. The bill defines “disseminate” broadly to include publishing, posting, or otherwise disclosing information online or in a public forum, and it defines “personal identifying information” to include a wide range of data such as names, addresses, phone numbers, government IDs, financial account numbers, biometric data, and school addresses.
The bill also includes an express safeguard stating that it may not be construed or applied in a way that violates free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution or the Maryland Declaration of Rights. A violation would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both, and the act would take effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
HB1150 would add a new section to Maryland’s Criminal Law Article, expanding criminal liability for online doxxing-like conduct directed at people under age 25. It would affect individuals who post or share another person’s identifying information or images with harmful intent, and it could be used to prosecute conduct involving harassment, intimidation, or threats through public internet postings. The bill would also create a new statutory framework that law enforcement and prosecutors would need to apply alongside existing privacy, harassment, and cyber-related laws.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at protecting young people from online harassment and misuse of personal information, while also acknowledging constitutional free-speech limits. The inclusion of a speech-protection clause suggests an effort to balance privacy and safety concerns with First Amendment issues.
Contention
The main likely point of contention is the scope of the prohibition, especially the broad definition of personal identifying information and the inclusion of images, which could raise concerns about overbreadth or chilling lawful speech. Another likely issue is the age cutoff of under 25, which is broader than many youth-protection laws and may prompt questions about why that age group was selected. Supporters would likely emphasize protection from doxxing, stalking, and intimidation, while critics may focus on enforcement challenges and constitutional concerns.