Judiciary Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: SB-989
Title: AN ACT CONCERNING ONLINE HARASSMENT.
Vote Date: 4/8/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/10/2021
File No.: 612
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
The Judiciary Committee
Rep. William A. Petit, 22nd Dist., Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, 136th Dist.,
Rep. Tammy R. Exum, 19th Dist., Sen. Alex Kasser, 36th Dist.,
Rep. Bobby G. Gibson, 15th Dist., Rep. Craig C. Fishbein, 90th Dist.,
Rep. Kimberly Fiorello, 149th Dist., Rep. Patricia A. Dillon, 92nd Dist.
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill was proposed to combat any online harassment based on race, ethnicity, religion,
disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. Extending the scope of second degree
stalking to include any electronic release of "personally identifying information" without
approval or consent from the individual. In addition, second-degree harassment includes
other forms of electronic communication like video-teleconferencing, email, text messages
and other computer programs. This legislation protects individuals from online harassment by
punishing those who have any malicious or hateful online conduct.
SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE:
The substitute language clarifies that under any circumstances where there is no legitimate
purpose and where there is intent to harass, terrorize or alarm is stalking in the second
degree. It states that stalking in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor. In addition, in
section 4 line 97, "181b" was replaced with "181d of the general statutes" to reference the
correct Statute
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
State of Connecticut Judicial Branch, External Affairs Division; does not express support nor
opposition recommending that "Section 2 (d) be expanded from one to two subsections so
that the class of crime is clearly separated."
Office of the Victim Advocate, Attorney, Natasha Pierre; supports this bill because it updates
the current stalking and harassment laws to include newer technology and wider forms of
communication. This bill also allows victims to bring a civil action against their
stalker/harasser to recover any damages. It is clarified that section "53a-181b" should be
replaced with "53a-181d," as C.G.S. 53a-181b was repealed in 2000. (This change was
addressed in the substitute language.)
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Jewish Federation Association of Connecticut, Executive Director, Michael Bloom; supports
this bill stating that while many communities have been subject to harassment, the Jewish
community has had countless harassment incidents. Any additional measures to combat
harassment is welcomed by the Jewish community.
Anti-Defamation Leagues Connecticut Regional Office, Director, Steve Ginsburg; supports
this bill stating that it brings serious consequences for malicious and hateful online conduct. It
is stated that online hate on social platforms where harassment and gathering of individual's
personal information continues. The ADL has concerns about the breadth of this proposal.
They believe it is important to include qualifying language stating an act of doxing must occur
with intent to harm and with reckless disregard of death, bodily injury or stalking."
Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Director of Policy and Public Relations, Lucy
Nolan; supports this bill for increasing the penalties for online harassment for hate crimes. It
is stated that women are the majority of targeted victims for harassment and non-consensual
release of personal information, videos and photos.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Interim Senior Policy Counsel, Kelly
McConney Moore; does not explicitly oppose or support the bill rather is concerned about
how this bill could impact protected speech without the purpose of harassment. It is stated
that this bill could criminalize third parties re-sharing doxed information. The Courts upheld
the First Amendment protection for third-parties from penalty of sharing such information as
long as it was not done illegally. As written this bill has the potential to "chill protected speech
and criminalize other valuable speech".
Reported by: Edward Jacome Date: 4/23/2021
Page 2 of 2 SB-989


Statutes affected:
Raised Bill:
JUD Joint Favorable Substitute:
File No. 612:
Public Act No. 21-56: