Element contents
Series: Elements in Forensic Linguistics
Doxxing Discourse
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 January 2026
Summary
Doxxing is the deliberate, unauthorized disclosure of personal information, often with malicious intent. Notably, it became a key method of public shaming and vigilantism during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. This Element understands and examines doxxing as a discursive practice. Using critical discourse analysis (CDA), it analyzes online forum discussions, survey and interview data from Hong Kong university students. Findings are examined alongside institutional legal texts to show how doxxing is discursively constructed, legitimized, and contested by different social actors. The case study identifies linguistic strategies such as metaphor, euphemism, and irony, along with legitimation discourses framing doxxing as social justice, deterrence, or moral self-defense. The Element also problematizes legal ambiguities and ethical tensions surrounding doxxing practices. By foregrounding the interplay between grassroots and legal discourses, it contributes to forensic linguistics scholarship on digital harm, power, and morality in contemporary mediated environments.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Forensic LinguisticsOnline ISBN: 9781009518734Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 26 February 2026
References
Ademilokun, M., & Taiwo, R. (2013). Discursive strategies in newspaper campaign advertisements for Nigeria’s 2011 elections. Discourse & Communication, 7(4), 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313494501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amnesty International. (2019). How not to police a protest: Unlawful use of force by Hong Kong police. www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA1705762019ENGLISH.pdf.Google Scholar
Anderson, J., & Wood, J. (2021). Doxxing: A conceptual framework. New Media & Society, 23(1), 203–220.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J. (2008). Potentials and limitations of discourse-centred online ethnography. Language@ internet, 5.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J. (2010). Localizing the global on the participatory web. In Coupland, N. (ed.), The handbook of language and globalization (pp. 201–231). Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J. (2014). Moments of sharing: Entextualization and linguistic repertoires in social networking. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J. (2024). The Offline–Online Nexus. The Bloomsbury Handbook of Linguistic Landscapes, 441–455.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J., & Stæhr, A. (2018). Moving methods online: Researching digital language practices. In Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and superdiversity (pp. 118–132). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assimakopoulos, S., Baider, F. H., & Millar, S. (2017). Online hate speech in the European Union: A discourse-analytic perspective. Springer Nature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assy, R. (2011). Can the law speak directly to its subjects? The limitation of plain language. Journal of Law and Society, 38(3), 376–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badarneh, M. A. (2020). “Like a donkey carrying books” Intertextuality and impoliteness in Arabic online reader responses. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 8(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baider, F., & Constantinou, M. (2020). Covert hate speech: A contrastive study of Greek and Greek Cypriot online discussions with an emphasis on irony. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 8(2), 262–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2019). From groups to actions and back in online-offline sociolinguistics. Multilingua, 38(4), 485–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 364–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013/2025). Language online: Investigating digital texts and practices. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, J. R. (1998). Introduction: Morality in discourse. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 31(3–4), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.1998.9683594.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (2010). Legal writing: Specificity Specification in legislative writing: Accessibility, transparency, power and control. In Coulthard, M. & Johnson, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 65–78). Routledge.Google Scholar
Binckes, J. (2022, December 15). What is doxxing? Elon Musk claims he was doxxed by the journalists suspended Thursday by Twitter. MarketWatch. www.marketwatch.com/story/what-is-doxxing-elon-musk-claims-he-was-doxxed-by-the-journalists-suspended-thursday-by-twitter-11671222702.Google Scholar
Bouvier, G., & Machin, D. (2020). Critical discourse analysis and the challenges and opportunities of social media. In Guillem, S. M. & Toula, C. (eds.), Critical discourse studies and/in communication (pp. 39–53). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
boyd, d. (2010). “Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications.” In Papacharissi, Z. (ed.), Networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 47–66). Routledge.Google Scholar
Calabrese, A. (2005). Communication, global justice and the moral economy. Global Media and Communication, 1(3), 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, D. (2009). Virtue, mixed emotions and moral ambivalence. Philosophy, 84(1), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Q., Chan, K., & Cheung, A. (2018). Doxing victimization and emotional problems among secondary school students in Hong Kong. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Q., Chan, K. L., & Cheung, A. S. Y. (2019). Doxing: What adolescents look for and their intentions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020218.Google ScholarPubMed
Chen, X. (2002). Social control in China: Applications of the labeling theory and the reintegrative shaming theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(1), 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheong, P. H., & Gong, J. (2010). Cyber vigilantism, transmedia collective intelligence, and civic participation. Chinese Journal of Communication, 3(4), 471–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, A. (2021). Doxing and the challenge to legal regulation: When personal data become a weapon. In Bailey, J., Flynn, A., & Henry, N. (eds.), The Emerald international handbook of technology-facilitated violence and abuse (pp. 577–594). Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chouliaraki, L. (2016). Victimhood, voice, and power in digital media. In Simonsen, K.-M. & Kjaergard, J. R. (eds.), Discursive framings of human rights (pp. 267–284). Birkbeck Law Press.Google Scholar
Choy, J. (2020). Umbrella uprising: A visual documentation of the 2019 Hong Kong protests. Jeffrey Choy.Google Scholar
Clark, M. D. (2020). DRAG THEM: A brief etymology of so-called “cancel culture”. Communication and the Public, 5(3–4), 88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cremins, D. (2024). Defending the public quad: Doxxing, campus speech policies, and the First Amendment. Stanford Law Review, 76, 1813–1835. https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/10/Cremins-76-Stan.-L.-Rev.-1813.pdf.Google Scholar
Crespo-Fernández, E. (2018). Euphemism as a discursive strategy in US local and state politics. Journal of Language and Politics, 17(6), 789–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, C. (2015). No laughing matter: Blaming the victim of online fraud. International Review of Victimology, 21(2), 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crown Prosecution Service. (2024, July 15). Cybercrime – prosecution guidance. www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/cybercrime-prosecution-guidance.Google Scholar
Danesi, M. (2021). The law and emojis: Emoji forensics. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 34, 1117–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, D. M. (2016). Doxing: A conceptual analysis. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(3), 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durant, A., & Leung, J. H. (2017). Pragmatics in legal interpretation. In Barron, A., Gu, Y., & Steen, G. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 535–549). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M. (2021). Desperately seeking intentions: Genuine and jocular insults on social media. Journal of Pragmatics, 179, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 5(11), 121–138.Google Scholar
Feltwell, T., Vines, J., Salt, K., et al. (2017). Counter-discourse activism on social media: The case of challenging “poverty porn” television. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 26(3), 345–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-017-9275-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forsyth, A. (2020). The protestors and the Hong Kong police force – Doxxing of personal data. GALA. http://blog.galalaw.com/post/102g3n5/the-protestors-and-the-hong-kong-police-force-doxxing-of-personal-data.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1971). Orders of discourse. Social Science Information, 10(2), 7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galleguillos, S. (2022). Digilantism, discrimination, and punitive attitudes: A digital vigilantism model. Crime, Media, Culture, 18(3), 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, L. (2016). The emergence of the human flesh search engine and political protest in China: Exploring the Internet and online collective action. Media, Culture & Society, 38(3), 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2021). Getting into the mob: A netnographic, case study approach to online public shaming. In Johansson, M., Tanskanen, S. K., & Chovanec, J. (eds.), Analyzing digital discourses (pp. 247–276). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84602-2_10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2022). Moral emotions, good moral panics, social regulation, and online public shaming. Language & Communication, 84, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götz, N. (2015). “Moral economy”: Its conceptual history and analytical prospects. Journal of Global Ethics, 11(2), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S., & Page, R. (2024). Discourses of political blame games: Introduction. Discourse, Context & Media, 60, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardaker, C. (2013). “Uh … . not to be nitpicky, but … the past tense of drag is dragged, not drug.”: An overview of trolling strategies. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 1(1), 58–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, C. (2021). Animals vs. armies: Resistance to extreme metaphors in anti-immigration discourse. Journal of Language and Politics, 20(2), 226–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. (1999). The rhetorical dynamics of gender harassment on-line. The Information Society, 15(3), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodsdon-Champeon, C. (2010). Conversations within conversations: Intertextuality in racially antagonistic online discourse. Language@ internet, 7, 1–22.Google Scholar
Hong Kong Free Press (HKFP). (2023). Hong Kong woman handed 2-month suspended sentence over doxxing alleged scammer. https://hongkongfp.com/2023/03/08/hong-kong-woman-handed-2-month-suspended-sentence-over-doxxing-alleged-scammer/.Google Scholar
Huey, L., Ferguson, L., & Towns, Z. (2025). “Cops need doxxed”: Releasing personal information of police officers as a tool of political harassment. Crime & Delinquency, 71(3), 714–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, A., Glendenning, A. C., Marchant, A., et al. (2018). Self-harm, suicidal behaviours, and cyberbullying in children and young people: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(4), e9044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, M., Kagan, M., Pinson, H., & Schler, L. (2019). No policies and no politics: Israeli teachers, asylum seeker pupils, and remobilized strategies of avoidance and depoliticization. Race Ethnicity and Education, 25(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M. (1997). Ignorance of law in an excuse–but only for the virtuous. Michigan Law Review, 96, 127–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khafaga, A. (2023). Strategic lexicalization in courtroom discourse: A corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 10(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, S. (2024, December 16). Australia: New privacy legislation criminalizes doxxing. Global Legal Monitor. www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2024-12-16/australia-new-privacy-legislation-criminalizes-doxxing/.Google Scholar
KhosraviNik, M. (ed.). (2023). Social Media and Society: Integrating the digital with the social in digital discourse (Vol. 100). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KhosraviNik, M., & Unger, J. W. (2016). Critical discourse studies and social media: Power, resistance and critique in changing media ecologies. Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, 3, 205–233.Google Scholar
Koller, V. (2020). Analysing metaphor in discourse. In Hart, C. (ed.), Researching discourse (pp. 77–96). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzyżanowski, M. (2020). Normalization and the discursive construction of “new” norms and “new” normality: Discourse in the paradoxes of populism and neoliberalism. Social Semiotics, 30(4), 431–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, S. D., & Loiselle, C. G. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2), 228–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, C. (2020). Doxxing as discursive action in a social movement. Critical Discourse Studies, 19(3), 326–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, H. (2019, September 6). A glossary of Hong Kong protest slang. Time. April 9, 2025. https://time.com/5668286/hong-kong-protests-slang-language-cantonese-glossary/.Google Scholar
Lyons, K. (2019). Let’s get phygital: Seeing through the ‘filtered’ landscapes of Instagram. Linguistic Landscape, 5(2), 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madianou, M. (2016). Ambient co‐presence: Transnational family practices in polymedia environments. Global Networks, 16(2), 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maragkou, E. (2019). “Dadfindboy”: How activists in Hong Kong are hijacking state tools of surveillance. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Matza, D., & Sykes, G. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670.Google Scholar
Mauran, C. (2022, December 16). EU says sanctions are coming after Elon Musk suspends journalists from Twitter. Mashable. https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-european-union-sanction-twitter-suspending-journalists.Google Scholar
Murumaa-Mengel, M., & Muuli, L. M. (2021). Misogynist content exposé pages on Instagram: Five types of shamings, moderators and audience members. Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 18(2), 100–123.Google Scholar
Myers, G. (2012 Stance-taking and public discussion in blogs. In Chouliaraki, L. (ed.), Self-mediation (pp. 55–67). Routledge.Google Scholar
Nott, L. (2025, May 12). What is doxing and is doxing illegal? Everything you should know. Freedom Forum. www.freedomforum.org/is-doxing-illegal/.Google Scholar
Oddo, J. (2011). War legitimation discourse: Representing ‘us’ and ‘them’ in four US presidential addresses. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510395442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PCPD. (2020). “Weaponization of personal data and duty of social media” – Privacy Commissioner’s article contribution at Hong Kong Lawyer, PCPD. https://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/news_events/newspaper/newspaper_202001.html.Google Scholar
Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) (n.d.). Doxxing. www.pcpd.org.hk/english/doxxing/index.html.Google Scholar
Parliament of Australia. (2024). Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7249_aspassed%2F0003;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7249_aspassed%2F0000%22.Google Scholar
Phillips, W. (2015). This is why we can’t have nice things: Mapping the relationship between online trolling and mainstream culture. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (eds.), Methods for critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 87–121). Sage.Google Scholar
Reyes, A. (2011). Strategies of legitimation in political discourse: From words to actions. Discourse & Society, 22(6), 781–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rheindorf, M. (2019). Revisiting the toolbox of discourse studies: New trajectories in methodology, open data, and visualization. Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rock, F., Heffer, C., & Conley, J. M. (2013). Textual travel in legal–lay communication. In Rock, F., Heffer, C., & Conley, J. M. (eds.), Legal-lay communication: Textual travels in the law (pp. 3–32). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCMP. (2019). Hong Kong privacy watchdog wants more power battle doxxing. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3036046/hong-kong-privacy-watchdog-wants-more-powerbattle-doxxing.Google Scholar
Skoric, M. M., Wong, K. H., Chua, J. P. E., Yeo, P. J., & Liew, M. A. (2010). Online shaming in the Asian context: Community empowerment or civic vigilantism? Surveillance & Society, 8(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v8i2.3485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
South China Morning Post (SCMP) (2023). Hong Kong’s privacy watchdog arrests woman, 27, for suspected doxxing after she allegedly posted personal details of friend’s ex-boyfriend online, www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3217625/hong-kongs-privacy-watchdog-arrests-woman-27-suspected-doxxing-after-she-allegedly-posted-personal.Google Scholar
Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (2017). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. In Blomberg, T. G., Cullen, F. T., Carlsson, C., & Jonson, C. L. (eds.), American sociological review, Volume 21 (pp. 33–41). Routledge.Google Scholar
Teo, P. (2000). Racism in the news: A critical discourse analysis of news reporting in two Australian newspapers. Discourse & Society, 11(1), 7–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, E. P. (1971). The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past & Present, 50(1), 76–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trottier, D. (2017). Digital vigilantism as weaponisation of visibility. Philosophy & Technology, 30, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2(1), 62–86.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Opinions and ideologies in the press. In Bell, A. & Garrett, P. (eds.), Approaches to media discourse (pp. 21–63). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Leeuwen, T. (2009). Discourse as the recontextualization of social practice: A guide. In Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 144–161). Sage.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, T., & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies, 1(1), 83–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wauters, K., Lievens, B., & Valcke, P. (2014). Privacy awareness and online behavior: A study of European teenagers. Information & Computer Security, 22(1), 47–64.Google Scholar
Wesch, M. (2009). An anthropological introduction to YouTube. Visual Anthropology Review, 25(2), 169–185.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (1990). Discourse analysis: Problems, findings, perspectives. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 10(1–2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1990.10.1-2.125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R. (1995). The development and forms of racist discourse in Austria since 1989. In Graddol, D. & Thomas, S. (eds.), Language in a changing Europe (pp. 1–15). British Association for Applied Linguistics and Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition, 15(1), 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R. (2014). Critical discourse analysis. In Leung, C. & Street, B. V. (eds.), The Routledge companion to English studies (pp. 302–316). Routledge.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (2015). Critical discourse analysis, discourse-historical approach. The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction, 3.Google Scholar
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 1–33). Sage.Google Scholar
Wong, C. K. (2024). Navigating gender hate in manospheres: Women’s affective dissonance and refusal on LIHKG in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill movement. Communication, Culture & Critique, 17(2), 112–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this element
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.