News from the South - Georgia News Feed
Georgia’s “anti-doxxing” legislation upsets the balance between free speech and privacy
Georgia’s ‘anti-doxxing’ legislation upsets the balance between free speech and privacy
by Harsh Patel, Georgia Recorder
March 18, 2025
No one – whether they are a private figure or a public official – wants to be harassed online with their private information paraded about for others to use to target them or their family members.
For instance, Eliud Bonilla, an American citizen, was temporarily removed from the voter rolls in Virginia due to a clerical error. Even though his voter registration was restored, a watchdog group published his personal information online, suggesting that he was a “noncitizen voter” who had committed voter fraud, causing him to fear for his safety. This sort of thing shouldn’t happen.
Unfortunately, the legislative fix that the Georgia General Assembly is working on – Senate Bill 27 – isn’t threading the needle quite right. In its current form, it would prohibit large amounts of truthful speech while still not effectively safeguarding people’s personal information. Moreover, SB 27 would largely duplicate already existing laws that criminalize much of the conduct the bill seeks to prevent.
The legislation makes it a crime to electronically post or transmit another person’s identifying information, including their name or where they work, if that information is “reasonably likely” to be used by another party to cause the identified person “reasonable fear” of physical injury, significant economic injury, or mental anguish.
There are several concerns with this expansive definition of criminal liability. First, it outlaws sharing identifying information that is already public. These days, people publicly post information about themselves online all the time, whether it’s photos on Instagram or their employment history on LinkedIn. Yet, another person who shares this already-public information could still be criminally charged under SB 27 if a third party uses it to harass or intimidate the identified party.
This leads to a second problem with the bill: It requires a person sharing identifying information about another to predict what a third party is “reasonably likely” to do with it. For instance, someone who posts a critical comment in a Facebook group about a local official that includes the official’s name and where they work, may find themselves arrested under SB 27 if another person in the group (whom the poster is unaware of) then sends violent hate mail to the official. SB 27 also contains no requirement that the third party’s malicious use of the identifying information occur close to the time when the poster shared it. So, even if the hate mail was sent months after the post was made, the poster could still be charged. The uncertainty of trying to forecast the future actions of unknown third parties will leave would-be critics no choice but to stay silent if they want to avoid criminal liability under SB 27.
A third problem with the bill is that it does not require actual injury to result from the posting of identifying information. It only requires that the information be used in a manner that would cause the identified person to have “reasonable fear” of stalking or physical harm, or to experience significant economic harm or emotional distress. This adds yet another layer of unpredictability about what can lawfully be shared because of the subjective nature of what amounts to grounds for “reasonable fear.”
Taken together, SB 27’s defects make it nearly impossible for would-be speakers to distinguish what information about another person can be electronically transmitted versus what could land them in jail. This will chill far more speech than the drafters of the bill likely meant to deter. As the United States Supreme Court has long recognized, laws with uncertain meanings as to what speech is prohibited “inevitably lead citizens to steer far wider of the unlawful zone . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.”
To be sure, SB 27 requires that the person transmitting the personally identifying information do so with “reckless disregard” for how others might use the information, but that provides no safe harbor from criminal prosecution. “Reckless disregard” can easily be alleged, even if it cannot ultimately be proven. Similarly, the bill contains a “constitutional savings clause” that says it’s not a crime if you post the information in furtherance of constitutionally protected activity. But, this is only an affirmative defense the poster will still have to prove. People will choose not to exercise their First Amendment right to speak, rather than risk fighting a criminal prosecution.
Finally, SB 27 is largely duplicative of other Georgia laws that already prohibit the same conduct the bill seeks to deter. For instance, Georgia common law already recognizes the tort of publication of private facts. Georgia Code § 16-11-39.1 classifies harassing as any form of electronic communication being used to harm others. And Georgia Code § 16-11-37 punishes an individual who makes a threat of violent crime toward others. With such laws already on the books, SB 27 would be detrimental to First Amendment rights without actually providing significant additional protections to potential crime victims.
The best course of action would be for the Georgia Legislature to reject SB 27. Short of that, the bill should be narrowed to restrict only the posting of identifying information that is not otherwise publicly available (e.g., bank account, Social Security, or unpublished cellphone numbers); require that the poster intentionally share the information for the sole purpose of causing violence or harassment toward the individual identified; and require that the sharing of the information cause actual harm (either physical, emotional or financial) to the identified person. Georgia lawmakers should take a critical look at SB 27 and either set it aside or significantly narrow it.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Georgia Recorder is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Georgia Recorder maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor John McCosh for questions: info@georgiarecorder.com.
The post Georgia’s “anti-doxxing” legislation upsets the balance between free speech and privacy appeared first on georgiarecorder.com
News from the South - Georgia News Feed
Thousands expected to rally nationwide Thursday against Trump 'war on working people'
SUMMARY: Thousands of protestors are set to gather nationwide on May Day to oppose the Trump administration’s policies, just days after President Trump’s 100th day in office. Demonstrators argue that Trump’s actions, including federal layoffs and cuts under the Department of Government Efficiency led by Elon Musk, harm the working class. The 50501 organization, coordinating rallies across states like Arizona and New York, condemns efforts to erase labor rights, silence immigrant voices, and break unions. Protest focuses include divesting from Musk’s Tesla, protecting diversity programs, and supporting labor unions. Inspired by the 1971 May Day protests, the movement aims to challenge billionaire power and reclaim workers’ rights.
The post Thousands expected to rally nationwide Thursday against Trump 'war on working people' appeared first on www.wsav.com
News from the South - Georgia News Feed
Can we afford the cost of cutting Head Start?
by Jamie Lackey, Georgia Recorder
April 30, 2025
Childhood poverty doesn’t happen by accident – it is found at the intersection of poor public policy, generational poverty, and a lack of access to essential resources.
And while childhood poverty can’t be solved by one policy or organization alone it can be made much worse by removing one. Head Start is one of the most effective anti-poverty programs we have in the United States. Cutting it would have devastating effects on families and communities for generations to come.
At Helping Mamas, a baby supply bank, we see every day what happens when children and families get the support they need and what happens when they don’t.
Head Start is so much more than just a preschool program. It is a family-centered program where parents receive workforce development support, health education and parenting education. Children receive quality early learning instruction closing literacy and school readiness gaps. It is a lifeline where families feel safe, loved and seen.
Like many learning environments, Head Start Programs are often the heart of a community. Through my work with Helping Mamas I see Head Start utilizing our resources for diapers, wipes, car seats and other essential items. They became a place of safety during Hurricane Helene. They partnered with us to make sure that families in rural areas had access to essential items at their most vulnerable moments.
Head Start mobilizes the community to volunteer with children and parents. I know that when parents engage with Head Start they are getting the tools and support they need to break the cycle of generational poverty.
And I have to ask, in a time where the U.S. is consistently falling behind the world in academic achievement – particularly in math where U.S. students currently rank 28th globally – why would we cut a program that has shown to increase a child’s academic success all the way through college?
I believe that good public policy, when paired with adequate funding, has the power to transform lives. It always has.
And when you combine that with strong community partnerships, you’re not just supporting individual children — you’re investing in our future workforce, the long-term health of our communities, and the strength of our economy.
Nonprofits alone cannot and should not continue to be the public safety net for our children. Overcoming educational deficits and poverty takes a combined approach of nonprofits, communities and public policy. Remove even one piece of the foundation and the structure won’t hold – collapsing along with the futures of our children.
Every dollar invested in Head Start generates up to $9 in economic returns through increased earnings, reduced reliance on public assistance and lower involvement with the criminal justice system. It also increases parental employment and reduced child maltreatment rates.
Head Start was created as part of our country’s War on Poverty – because early childhood education, health care, and family support are not luxuries – they are necessities. Cutting Head Start doesn’t just impact our classrooms today – it threatens the future of our workforce, our economy and our country’s ability to compete on the world stage.
So I will ask again: Can we afford the cost of cutting Head Start Programs? I don’t think so. Our children don’t think so. And if our politicians are serious about creating a better future, they shouldn’t think so either.
This is more than a budget item, it is the future of our children and our communities. Let’s send the message that we cannot keep trying to balance a budget on the backs of our youngest most vulnerable citizens.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Georgia Recorder is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Georgia Recorder maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor John McCosh for questions: info@georgiarecorder.com.
The post Can we afford the cost of cutting Head Start? appeared first on georgiarecorder.com
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Left-Leaning
This content strongly advocates for the preservation of the Head Start program, which is framed as a critical anti-poverty and educational tool for children. The language used emphasizes the benefits of government-funded initiatives and community partnerships, promoting the idea that such programs are essential to societal progress and economic well-being. The tone is persuasive, appealing to values of social equity and the long-term advantages of investing in early childhood education. This focus on the positive impact of government-supported programs and the critique of budget cuts reflects a left-leaning perspective on social welfare and education policy.
News from the South - Georgia News Feed
Developer's gated community plan tests old land protections
SUMMARY: St. Helena Island, S.C., protected by a 1999 Cultural Protection Overlay (CPO), faces a proposed change by developer Elvio Tropeano for Pine Island Development: a gated community with a golf course. This conflicts with the community’s original agreement to forbid such developments. Penn Center’s Robert Adams argues this plan contradicts long-standing rules and the county’s smart growth goals, citing overwhelmed infrastructure and potential displacement of natives. Tropeano counters that the project aligns with county goals, will boost the tax base, create jobs, and preserve open space. Tropeano has requested a map amendment, with a planning commission meeting set for May 5.
The post Developer's gated community plan tests old land protections appeared first on www.wsav.com
-
Mississippi Today3 days ago
Trump appoints former Gov. Phil Bryant to FEMA Review Council as state awaits ruling on tornadoes
-
News from the South - Missouri News Feed5 days ago
Missouri lawmakers on the cusp of legalizing housing discrimination
-
Mississippi Today4 days ago
Derrick Simmons: Monday’s Confederate Memorial Day recognition is awful for Mississippians
-
Mississippi News6 days ago
Events happening this weekend in Mississippi: April 25-27
-
Mississippi Today7 days ago
Tyler Perry comedy about a Mississippi lieutenant governor ‘She The People’ set to stream on Netflix
-
News from the South - Florida News Feed6 days ago
Florida woman accused of setting fires during burn ban
-
Mississippi Today7 days ago
Parents, providers urge use of unspent TANF for child care
-
News from the South - Oklahoma News Feed4 days ago
TIMELINE: Storm chances return for parts of Oklahoma on Sunday, in coming days