The government’s decision to strengthen the law around doxxing will be unwelcome news for some of the self-styled “patriots” who have increasingly turned social media into a weapon against people they regard as political enemies.
Doxxing, the deliberate publication of someone’s personal information, including their name, home address or other identifying details, is often dismissed by those responsible as nothing more than online activism. For the people targeted, however, it can be the beginning of something considerably more serious. Once an individual’s address is circulating online, the target has no control over who sees it, who copies it, or what somebody might decide to do with the information.
The consequences can include threatening communications, unwanted visits, stalking, surveillance, criminal damage and sustained harassment. Even where none of those things ultimately happens, knowing that strangers have access to your home address can fundamentally alter a person’s sense of security. The person publishing the information may be sitting safely behind a keyboard, while the victim is left wondering who might be looking at their house, who might turn up at their door, and whether their family could become involved.
Members of the Dorset Eye team know that reality only too well. The independent Dorset-based publication has faced intimidation and harassment in connection with its reporting on racism and far-right activity, and the situation has become sufficiently serious that a police officer has now been assigned to the team. It is an extraordinary position for a local independent media organisation to find itself in: journalists and contributors requiring a dedicated police point of contact because their work exposing racism and challenging extremist narratives has made them targets.
Dorset Eye has spent years reporting on issues that larger media organisations sometimes overlook, including racism, anti-migrant agitation and the activities of groups operating on the fringes of mainstream politics. Such journalism inevitably attracts criticism, but criticism and intimidation are not the same thing. A newspaper can be challenged, an article can be criticised and a journalist can be told they are wrong. What should not happen is the weaponisation of their personal information in an attempt to frighten them into silence.
The same principle applies to RNLI volunteers who have found themselves caught up in increasingly hostile political campaigns over the small-boats issue. Whatever someone’s views on immigration, asylum policy, or Channel crossings, RNLI volunteers do not decide Government policy; they respond to people in distress at sea. Concerns have been raised about volunteers being targeted online and about personal information being circulated. When that happens, political disagreement risks becoming something far more personal.
This is where the supposedly anonymous world of social media politics can become something altogether different. Once an individual’s private details have been published, the original poster cannot control who receives them or what happens next. Information can be copied, screenshotted, and redistributed within minutes, potentially reaching people whose intentions are entirely unknown to the person who originally published it. The individual responsible can subsequently claim that they merely “shared information” or never intended anything to happen, but the victim is still left dealing with the consequences.
Doxxing is therefore not simply another form of unpleasant online argument. It can create a bridge between digital hostility and physical intimidation, which is why the government’s moves to strengthen protections deserve serious attention. There must, of course, be safeguards protecting legitimate journalism, whistleblowing, and political expression. A democracy cannot function if people are prevented from exposing wrongdoing or challenging those in positions of power. But there is a fundamental distinction between exposing wrongdoing in the public interest and exposing someone’s private address to an audience that may use it to harass or intimidate them.
The increasingly poisonous nature of political debate online has created an environment in which opponents can sometimes be treated not as fellow citizens with different opinions, but as enemies to be identified, exposed and humiliated. Doxxing fits readily into that culture because it allows somebody to move from attacking an individual’s views to targeting the individual themselves.
The experience of Dorset Eye should concern anyone who believes in a free press and an open democracy. An independent local publication should not have to worry about the personal safety of its journalists and contributors simply because it has exposed racism. Volunteers should not have to fear becoming targets because they helped save someone’s life, and ordinary citizens should not have to retreat from public debate because an online mob has decided to discover where they live.
There is nothing patriotic about intimidating fellow citizens. Britain has a long tradition of vigorous political disagreement, and people have every right to argue, protest, campaign and challenge one another. But there is a clear difference between a robust political argument and deliberately exposing people to harassment or intimidation. If people genuinely believe in free speech, they should defend the right of their opponents to speak as well as their own. If they believe in democracy, they should accept that other citizens have the right to disagree with them.
Doxxing takes political disagreement out of the realm of ideas and into people’s private lives. It turns an argument on a screen into something that can arrive at somebody’s front door. That is why it should be treated with the seriousness it deserves and why those who use personal information as a weapon should no longer assume that the internet provides them with impunity.
