“She didn’t understand the ramifications” - YouTuber LegalEagle gives his take on SSSniperWolf's action amidst the Jacksfilms doxxing controversy

The ongoing dispute between YouTubers Alia "SSSniperWolf" and John "Jacksfilms" has attracted the attention of another prominent figure.

Legal YouTuber LegalEagle has offered his professional insights on the ongoing controversy. For context, Alia had 'doxxed' John's personal information by sharing a photograph of his residence on her Instagram stories earlier this month.

Since this incident, a series of events have unfolded, leading to YouTube temporarily suspending Alia's monetization for her actions. Now, LegalEagle has contributed his own legal expertise to the discussion.

In a video published on October 24, LegalEagle disclosed that despite "doxxing" being a prohibited activity on YouTube, it may not necessarily constitute a crime in the real world as long as it is not carried out with malicious intent or the intention to inflict harm. Nonetheless, he said:

"She (SSSniperWolf) didn’t understand the ramifications."

---

LegalEagle goes through SSSniperWolf vs. Jacksfilms drama

Naturally, the ongoing dispute between SSSniperWolf and Jacksfilms has sparked various reactions across the internet. However, LegalEagle, as a practicing lawyer, provided his professional perspective on what actions are legally permissible and what should be avoided in such situations.

Addressing his audience, LegalEagle offered a statutory definition of doxxing, clarifying that, generally, it is not commonly regarded as a criminal offense under U.S. jurisdiction:

Doxxing is not a crime according to U.S. jurisdiction (Image via YouTube)

The YouTuber also shared that the state of California has a specific law related to doxxing, which stipulates that it can be subject to punishment if the act results in cyber-harassment:

California law against doxxing (Image via YouTube)

LegalEagle proceeded to express his opinion that, despite Jacksfilms and his wife feeling unsafe after being doxxed, there wasn't an immediate instance of harassment directed at them as a result of the doxxing incident. he said:

"The fact that they haven't received this kind of harassment, at least none that I am aware of, at the moment, after this alleged doxxing, might show that it did not in fact rise to level of imminent action from the people that were viewing this post (Instagram story)."

He continued:

"It doesn't necessarily mean that once it's public (private information), something bad is immediately going to happen."

He added:

"Even if the fear of Jacksfilms' family is shown to be reasonable, and that's definitely possible, the statute requires that the information was posted with the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury or harassment."

LegalEagle, however, believed that since SSSniperWolf did not know, or at least by her own admission, didn't mean any harm, it would be hard for this case to be proved criminally offensive.

---

SSSniperWolf has issued a public apology, but it has received substantial criticism. Many individuals have expressed the belief that the apology seemed to be generated by AI due to its perceived insincerity.