Gershs experience is emblematic of a key in of harassment called doxing.
The term dates back to themid-2000s, but doxing has since become a well-known harassment tactic.
The deluge of hate, which lasted months, forced Gersh to scrub her online life.
Police sent patrols by her home and work.
Her childrens school tightened security.
She spoke with the FBI.
But the trolling continued.
She had panic attacks and says her physical health suffered as a result of the online abuse.
40% off TNW Conference!
What they did to me was like terrorism.
They took away everything that I knew to be my life, Gersh said.
There is no doubt the doxing caused Gersh extreme harm.
But was publishing Gershs contact information illegal?
Many states are grappling with this question right now.
Three more states, Nebraska, New Jersey, and West Virginia, are currently considering anti-doxing laws.
California is considering increasing the penalties for doxing reproductive health care workers.
She has yet to see the money.
I just happened to be the lucky one.
How do anti-doxing laws work?
Each approach has its quirks.
Some states have made doxing a crime.
In this case a doxer could face jail time or fines if convicted.
That has historically been a huge problem, Albert said.
Finally, a handful of states have created hyper-targeted doxing laws protecting specific groups.
Colorado has made itillegal to dox health care workers.
Oklahomapassed a lawmaking doxing police officers a misdemeanor punishable by six months in jail or a $1,000 fine.
Could anti-doxing laws be abused?
Journalists regularly publish private information, like addresses or names.
Voters might share a politicians email address on Twitter.
Both of these actions include sharing someones identity or contact informationsometimes against that persons wishes.
The Northern California branch of the ACLU didnt respond to a request for comment for this story.
The Nevada branch of the ACLU didnt respond to requests for comment for this story.
Any of these laws could be subverted by the powerful, he said.
Requiring proof of malicious intent or negligence is an attempt to address free speech concerns.
But it also opens a backdoor for bad actors to get around these laws.
Doxers might attempt to disguise the fact that they intend to harm someone.
When Anglins followers doxed Gersh, she says, they tried to walk through this door.
They peppered their threats with modifiers like could or should.
And in Gershs case, it was abundantly clear Anglin and his followers were attempting to harass her.
This article wasoriginally published on The Markupby Emma Betuel and was republished under theCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivativeslicense.
