We live more and more in digital spaces, so we have to work harder to distinguish protected online speech from unprotected online conduct. In the wake of the attack at the U.S. Capitol on January 6—an attack that was planned, mobilized and livestreamed online—this work has gained an even greater sense of urgency, especially when it comes to doxing.
 
Many people define doxing as posting someone’s personal information online. But doxing as a blanket term threatens to ignore the crucial difference between criminal doxing on the one hand, and, on the other hand, lawfully identifying people online, where the purpose may be to protect others, track down extremists or report on a public interest story. This is why ADL and State Senator Adam Morfeld worked together to introduce legislation to outlaw criminal doxing in Nebraska. It is time to protect targets of this behavior better while upholding constitutional speech rights.
 
Criminal doxing is when someone posts another person’s information and, in doing so, meets specific standards of intent that go to whether the disclosure will lead to criminal conduct such as death, injury or stalking. For example, when Andrew Anglin, publisher of neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer and one of the organizers of the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, posted the name and address of Tanya Gersh, a Jewish real estate agent in Montana, and photos of her children, his purpose was to incite his readers to stalk and terrorize her. And his followers understood that all too well, responding with hundreds of threatening calls and antisemitic messages.  
 
We asked Ms. Gersh about the abuse directed toward her. She said, “I received emails, texts, and voicemails threatening my life. I was told I would be driven to the brink of suicide. There were references to being thrown in the oven, being gassed, and there were calls with only gunshots. They published suggestions to show up at my house, visit me in person and get me alone