Ridge Runner Chronicles – February 1, 2024
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By BILL HOGLAND
In case you were not aware of it, the Illinois legislature passed new legislation last summer that could impact you without you even knowing what the heck this legislation has reference to. I am talking about the “Civil Liability for Doxing Act,” which became effective Jan. 1, 2024.
The term “doxing” is a new one on me and maybe you had no clue about what it means either. As I understand it, “doxing” refers to “dropping” or releasing via electronic means for public consumption “documents” or other forms of information that provide personal information about another person without their consent with the intention of harming that person. An example would be maliciously posting on social media an embarrassing photograph of another person, such as a photo of a married person in a lip-lock with someone other than their spouse.
The purported purpose of the Act is to stop bulling and other abusive behavior on social media by creating a right to sue someone who violates the terms of the Act. The Act is violated when the personal information is “published”—meaning when it is sent to two other persons–but it does not necessarily require that a “document” be sent, which is a bit confusing thanks to the unusual name of this legislation. The Act exempts private communications between two people in which there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy”—whatever that means—and it also purports to exempt activity “that is protected under the Constitution of the United States or the Illinois Constitution”—whatever that means. While the intent of the Act may be commendable, it clearly creates a chilling effect on free speech. How can anyone know in advance whether their positing or disclosure is protected speech or not?
The fact that the information or document being posted is true is irrelevant; the truth is not a defense under this statute. So how does this potentially impact you? Let’s suppose, for example, that you are an employer and you get an inquiry from a company who wants to hire a former employee whom you fired because of absenteeism; so you send the inquiring company a portion of the employment record which shows his absenteeism. Or suppose you own rental property and you get an inquiry from a company who is planning on leasing to a former tenant whom you evicted for non-payment of rent and damage to the property, so you send them some photos of the damage and a copy of the payment records. Both situations involve revealing true information but the fact that the information is true is irrelevant; instead the issue is whether you intended to harm that person when you revealed personal information about that bad employee or that terrible tenant. And who gets to decide whether you “intended” to harm that person? A jury. Do you want to run that risk? I don’t.
And we haven’t even discussed what you might be tempted to post on social media, such as the photo of that married person in a lip-lock with someone other than their spouse. Now that this law has taken effect, you better really watch what you post and don’t post anything derogatory about anyone if you do not have the consent of the person that is the subject of the posting. In my opinion, this is bad legislation because it is too broad and too vague and could seriously impact our traditional right of free speech.
