Correct
Oh I know what the Powers That Be say it's about. I also know that I have lived on the internet for decades since before doxxing was a term, and I've lived in the real world long enough to know that it's never about reality, it is about framing. Compare the numbers of times a cop has IRL been doxxed, versus the number of times that cops have done some shanky "don't want the world to know about it" stuff and I bet the former is a pittance in comparison.
Normally I'd say to watch out for the rule of unintended consequences but this times it's more like the rule of "unintended" consequences.
I would assume that is the intent, however the wording doesnt confine it to that intent. The wording could easily be interpreted as anyone using their phone to record an unlawful act by a police officer that provides an image of the officers face, badge number, or other identifying information and then shows it to anyone else, they could be on the hook if the person they show it to then threatens the officer or calls for public action against the officer. The same would hold true if a video was released of an elected official discussing or doing something that might inflame a response from the public.
If it was instead worded to confine the intent to publishing these videos while also calling for the targeting of the subject of the recording, I could understand it. That is not the way it is worded though.
Similar threads
