HB1778 amends Arkansas’s stalking statute to expand the conduct that can support a stalking charge. Under current law, second-degree stalking requires a course of conduct involving harassment and a terroristic threat made with the purpose of placing a person in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury, or fear for an immediate family or household member. The bill adds a new category covering threats intended to place a person in imminent fear of unwanted sexual intercourse, deviate sexual activity, or other sexual contact, including threats directed at the person’s family or household member.
The bill also revises the statutory definition of “course of conduct” for stalking. It clarifies that a pattern of conduct consists of two or more acts separated by at least 36 hours and occurring within one year, and expressly includes conduct carried out directly, indirectly, or through third parties by following, monitoring, observing, surveilling, threatening, communicating, or interfering with property. It further specifies that electronic communications such as email, text messages, internet messages, websites, and social media platforms can qualify as part of the course of conduct. Finally, it states that constitutionally protected activity is excluded, and directs courts to decide that issue as a matter of law if raised.
In practical terms, the bill broadens the reach of Arkansas’s stalking law and gives prosecutors clearer statutory language for cases involving sexual-threat-based intimidation and digital harassment. It affects Arkansas Code § 5-71-229 and may increase the range of conduct that can be charged as second-degree stalking, especially where threats are made through electronic means or through third parties. It also provides an explicit constitutional safeguard by excluding protected speech or activity from the stalking definition.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The voting record shows overwhelming support in both chambers, with unanimous or near-unanimous passage on third reading and only two nays on the Senate concurrence vote. No committee transcript concerns are available, and the recorded votes suggest broad bipartisan agreement that the bill updates stalking law to address sexual threats and modern communication methods.
The main point of potential contention is the breadth of the expanded stalking definition, particularly the inclusion of electronic communications and indirect conduct, which could raise concerns about overbreadth or overlap with protected expression. However, the bill directly addresses that issue by excluding constitutionally protected activity and requiring courts to evaluate such claims as a matter of law. Supporters likely view the measure as a needed modernization of stalking protections for victims of harassment, threats, and sexual intimidation.
HB1778 amends Arkansas Code § 5-71-229, expanding second-degree stalking to include threats that place a person in fear of unwanted sexual intercourse, deviate sexual activity, or other sexual contact, including threats aimed at a family or household member. It also broadens and clarifies the definition of “course of conduct” to expressly cover electronic communications and indirect conduct, while excluding constitutionally protected activity. The bill therefore enlarges the set of behaviors that can support a stalking prosecution and updates the statute for digital-era harassment.
The bill appears to have been received positively and passed with strong bipartisan support. House and Senate third-reading votes were overwhelmingly in favor, and the Senate concurrence vote was 93-2. The absence of recorded committee opposition or transcript debate suggests the measure was viewed as a straightforward public-safety update rather than a controversial policy change.
The primary area of possible contention is the expanded scope of stalking liability, especially the inclusion of social media, text messages, and other electronic communications within the “course of conduct” definition. Critics of similar measures sometimes worry about overcriminalization or First Amendment issues, but HB1778 attempts to limit that concern by excluding constitutionally protected activity and requiring judicial review of any such claim. No specific opposition is reflected in the available votes or transcripts.