Prohibits, under certain circumstances, disclosure of certain personal identifying information, including home address and photographic image, concerning any federal, State, or municipal judicial officer, or that judicial officer's immediate family members.
Assembly Bill 2662 would make it a crime to post or publish on the Internet certain personal identifying information about federal, State, or municipal judicial officers, retired judicial officers, or their immediate family members when done with the purpose of exposing them to harassment or a risk of harm to life or property, or in reckless disregard of that risk. The bill covers information such as a name, home address, photographic image, or other identifying depiction, and it applies only when the person is not acting in an official judicial capacity. It also creates a separate restriction on State and local government agencies, barring them from publishing such information online without the judge’s written permission.
The bill supplements New Jersey’s criminal code and public records laws by adding both criminal penalties and a private civil remedy. A reckless violation would be a fourth-degree crime, while a purposeful violation would be a third-degree crime. In addition, any affected judicial officer or qualifying immediate family member could sue for damages, attorney’s fees, and equitable relief, with a minimum liquidated damages amount of $1,000 per violation. The bill also provides that a criminal conviction can estop a defendant from denying the same conduct in a related civil case.
The measure’s impact on state law would be to create a new category of protected personal information for judges and certain household family members, and to limit how that information may be disseminated online. It would amend and supplement Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes and Title 47 of the Revised Statutes, expanding both criminal liability and civil exposure for doxxing-like conduct directed at judicial officers. The bill defines “judicial officer” broadly to include federal judges, New Jersey judges, municipal judges, and certain administrative adjudicators.
Because the bill text is pre-filed and there is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, there is no documented legislative debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill’s structure, the general sentiment appears protective of judicial officers and their families, emphasizing safety, privacy, and deterrence of harassment. The absence of recorded votes or hearings means no formal legislative sentiment can be inferred beyond the sponsor’s apparent intent to strengthen protections.
The main point of contention likely concerns the balance between protecting judges from harassment and preserving public access to information, transparency, and free-speech interests. Potential concerns may also include the breadth of the definitions of “personal identifying information,” “judicial officer,” and “immediate family member,” as well as whether the criminal penalties and civil damages provisions are too expansive. The bill’s application to Internet publication and to government agencies could also raise questions about enforcement and First Amendment limits.
The bill would add new criminal offenses and civil remedies to New Jersey law for online disclosure of identifying information about judicial officers and certain family members, and would restrict State and local agencies from publishing such information without written consent. It supplements Title 2C and Title 47, creating liability for doxxing-like conduct aimed at judges and extending protections to federal, State, and municipal judicial officers, including retired judges, and their immediate family members.
No committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or recorded support/opposition. The bill’s text suggests a generally protective and security-focused intent, aimed at reducing harassment and threats against judges and their families. Overall sentiment appears favorable to safeguarding judicial officers, though the measure could draw scrutiny from those concerned about speech and public-information access.
The likely areas of contention are the scope of the information covered, the breadth of the protected class, and the tension between privacy/safety and First Amendment or transparency concerns. Critics may question whether the bill’s definitions are too broad, whether criminalizing online publication could chill lawful speech, and whether the civil damages and attorney’s fees provisions are too punitive. Supporters would likely emphasize the need to deter harassment, threats, and doxxing of judges and their families.