Mississippi Doxxing Prevention Act; create to prevent release of personal information with intent to harass.
HB 678 creates the Mississippi Doxxing Prevention Act, a criminal and records-confidentiality measure aimed at protecting certain public-facing individuals from the intentional release of personal information. The bill defines a “covered person” broadly to include law enforcement officers, state and local government employees, jurors, court officers, witnesses, and informants, along with their close relations. It makes it unlawful to knowingly make restricted personal information publicly available when done with intent to harass, threaten, intimidate, or facilitate a crime against those persons.
The bill also amends Mississippi’s Public Records Act to exempt restricted personal information of covered persons from disclosure, expanding existing protections for law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, and their families. In addition, it preserves current rules on incident reports, investigative reports, victim information, and certain hospital board records, and it carries forward the statute governing random jury selection. The act is set to take effect July 1, 2025.
HB 678 would add a new criminal offense for doxxing covered persons and their close relations, with penalties ranging from a misdemeanor for a first offense to a felony for repeat offenses, and enhanced punishment where the underlying conduct involves a crime of violence. It would also broaden Mississippi Public Records Act exemptions by shielding home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, Social Security numbers, and similar personal data of covered persons from public disclosure. The bill would therefore affect public access to government records, law enforcement and court-related privacy practices, and the handling of personal information by agencies subject to the Public Records Act.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest strong support for privacy and safety protections for public officials, law enforcement, jurors, witnesses, and informants. The available context does not include committee debate or recorded votes, so there is no documented opposition or amendment activity in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears framed as a protective response to harassment and intimidation concerns associated with public disclosure of personal information.
The main potential point of contention is the breadth of the covered-person definition and the scope of the records exemptions, which extend beyond traditional law enforcement and judicial officers to many state and local employees, jurors, witnesses, informants, and their close relations. Critics could view the bill as limiting transparency by expanding Public Records Act exemptions, while supporters would likely emphasize the need to prevent harassment, intimidation, and retaliatory conduct. Another possible issue is the criminalization of publishing personal information when paired with intent-based standards, which may raise questions about enforcement and the line between protected speech and unlawful conduct.