Anti-doxing bill to protect judges clears judiciary panel

The words “dox” or “doxing” don’t appear anywhere in the text of HF4326, but that’s what the bill is all about.

To dox is to publicly identify or publish private information about someone, especially as a form of punishment or revenge.

In large part because of the nature of their jobs, judges can quickly rack up plenty of enemies bent on doxing them.

Too often, noted Rep. Brion Curran (DFL-Vadnais Heights), posting online, say, a judge’s home address or personal phone number is paired with a threat to cause bodily harm.

Curran sponsors the bill that would:

• classify the personal information of judicial officials as private data;
• prohibit disseminating that information;
• establish a legal pathway for judicial officials to remove their personal information from the internet;
• make it a misdemeanor crime to knowingly publish the personal information of a judicial official with the intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or physically injure; and
• make it a felony if the published information also results in bodily harm.

The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee approved the bill, as amended, Thursday on a split-voice vote and sent it to the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee.

Citing a January 2024 survey conducted by the Minnesota District Judges Association, District Court Judge Todd Schoffelman testified on the danger judges now face.

“This is a nationwide [problem] and unfortunately coming to Minnesota. It’s a serious safety concern,” he said.

Rep. Brion Curran

According to the survey, nearly 90% of responding judges have received inappropriate communications because of their work and 72% have received threats.

Many judges reported receiving one or more death threats, Schoffelman said, including in one case, threats involving “very specific forms of torture.” More than one judge reported threats to their children.

Persons who would get anti-doxing protections in the bill include district court judges, appeals court judges, justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court, and judicial branch employees.

Family members of judges would also get some protections.

Dissemination of some personal information would be permitted, including revealing “personal information if the information is relevant to and displayed as part of a news story, commentary, editorial, or other speech on a matter of public concern.”

Curran said those exceptions are included because without them the bill would run afoul of First Amendment protections against censoring free speech.

Munira Mohamed, a policy associate with the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, called including those exceptions “helpful,” but said vague wording in the bill could be “potentially confusing in application.”

“It reads like news stories could still be removed if judicial officials wanted, or criminal penalties imposed if a prosecutor says the speech is intimidating,” she said. “This would have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights.”