Criminal Law - Distribution of Students' Personal Information - Prohibition
Summary
SB 889 creates a new criminal offense for intentionally distributing the personal identifying information or image of a student enrolled in a secondary school or a postsecondary institution when done without permission and with intent, knowledge, or reckless disregard that the material will be used to harm the student. For minors, permission must come from a parent or guardian; for adults, the student must consent. The bill defines “personal identifying information” broadly to include items such as names, addresses, phone numbers, government identification numbers, financial account information, biometric data, and school address.
The bill also specifies that a violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. It includes a constitutional safeguard stating that the section may not be applied in a way that violates free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution or the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The act is set to take effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
If enacted, SB 889 would add a new section to Maryland’s Criminal Law Article establishing penalties for doxxing-like conduct involving students’ personal information or images. It would expand state criminal law protections for students in grades 6 through 12 and for college students at qualifying postsecondary institutions, while also creating a new misdemeanor offense and associated penalties for unlawful disclosure. The bill would affect individuals who share student information, as well as schools, students, and parents/guardians, but it expressly preserves free speech constraints.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available record suggests the bill is framed as a student-safety and privacy measure rather than a controversial policy change. Its structure indicates an effort to target harmful disclosures while avoiding overbreadth through intent/recklessness requirements and a free-speech disclaimer. No formal vote history or transcript evidence is available to show support or opposition, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from committee debate, but the bill appears designed to address a perceived privacy and harassment problem.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are the breadth of the prohibited conduct and the balance between student privacy and free speech. Critics could question whether the definition of personal identifying information is too expansive or whether criminal liability could chill legitimate speech, reporting, or publication involving students. Supporters would likely emphasize the bill’s requirement that the disclosure be intentional and tied to harm, as well as the explicit constitutional limitation. Another possible issue is the inclusion of images alongside personal information, which may raise concerns about how the law would apply in public-interest or journalistic contexts.