Tennessee House Bill HB1314

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/25
• Refer: 2/12/25
• Refer: 3/12/25
• Refer: 3/26/25
• Refer: 4/2/25
• Refer: 4/8/25
• Engrossed: 4/14/25
• Enrolled: 4/28/25
• Passed: 5/21/25
• Chaptered: 5/27/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 13, Part 8 and Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 3, relative to criminal offenses.

Summary

HB1314 creates a new felony offense for knowingly threatening to commit an act of “mass violence” by any means of communication when the threat causes another person to reasonably expect the act will occur. The bill defines mass violence as conduct a reasonable person would believe could lead to the imminent serious bodily injury or death of four or more people, and it defines communication broadly to include spoken, written, electronic, and social media-based threats. The bill also sets enhanced penalties for threats involving schools, houses of worship, government property, or live events, for repeat offenders, and for cases where the defendant takes substantial preparatory steps toward carrying out the threat.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee criminal law in Title 39 by adding a new offense related to threats of mass violence and by creating a separate offense for posting a person’s home address or telephone number on a publicly accessible website with intent to cause harm or a threat of harm. The mass-violence threat offense is generally a Class E felony, but it becomes a Class D felony in specified aggravating circumstances, and courts may order restitution for disruption and related costs. The doxxing-related offense is a Class B misdemeanor, elevated to a Class A misdemeanor if the posting results in bodily injury or property damage, and it excludes public servants acting within their official duties as required by law.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad support overall, passing through committee and floor votes with strong majorities, though not unanimously. The vote history suggests lawmakers generally favored stronger criminal penalties for threats of mass violence and harmful online disclosure of personal information, likely reflecting concern about school safety, public safety, and targeted harassment. The presence of some dissenting votes indicates at least limited concern about the scope or severity of the new offenses.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely the breadth of the new criminal offenses and the severity of the penalties. The bill covers a wide range of communications, including social media and other electronic messages, and it uses a reasonably broad definition of mass violence and harm, which could raise concerns about overcriminalization or ambiguity in application. The doxxing provision may also have prompted debate about free speech, privacy, and the line between harmful intent and protected publication, while the enhanced felony treatment for threats at schools, houses of worship, government property, or live events suggests a focus on high-risk settings that some members may have viewed as necessary and others as potentially expansive.