Tennessee Senate Bill SB1296

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/25
• Chaptered: 5/27/25
• Passed: 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

SB1296, as enacted as Public Chapter No. 522, creates a new criminal 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 to occur. The bill defines “mass violence” as conduct that a reasonable person would conclude could lead to imminent serious bodily injury or death of four or more people, and it broadly defines “means of communication” to include oral, written, electronic, and social media-based communications. It also defines “school” broadly for purposes of the enhanced penalty provisions. The bill establishes a baseline Class E felony for such threats, but increases the offense to a Class D felony in several circumstances: when the threat targets school property, a house of worship, or government property; when it targets a live performance or event; when the defendant has prior convictions under this section or Tennessee’s existing threat statute; or when the defendant takes substantial steps toward carrying out the threatened violence and engages in preparatory actions such as acquiring materials, making plans, conducting surveillance, or researching methods. The bill also authorizes restitution for disruption and related costs caused by the threat. In a separate provision, the bill creates a new misdemeanor offense for posting an individual’s telephone number or home address on a publicly accessible website with the intent to cause harm or a threat of harm to that person or a family or household member. This offense is a Class B misdemeanor, elevated to a Class A misdemeanor if the posting results in bodily injury or property damage. The section exempts public servants acting within the scope of their duties and as required by law. The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 39, affecting both the state’s criminal threat statutes and its laws governing harmful online disclosure of personal information. Its practical effect is to expand prosecutorial tools against mass-violence threats, school and venue threats, and doxxing-style conduct, while also allowing courts to impose restitution for disruption caused by threats. The act takes effect July 1, 2025. Overall, the bill appears to have been received favorably in committee, advancing with strong majorities through the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee. The available vote history suggests broad support for the measure, likely reflecting concern over school safety, public threats, and online harassment. The main points of contention are likely the breadth of the “mass violence” definition, the wide range of communications covered, and the potential for the new posting offense to raise free-speech or overbreadth concerns, though no transcript excerpts are available showing detailed debate.

Impact

The bill adds a new felony offense for threatening mass violence and a new misdemeanor offense for posting a person’s home address or phone number online with harmful intent, thereby expanding Tennessee’s criminal code in Title 39, Chapter 13 and Title 39, Chapter 17. It increases penalties in aggravating circumstances, authorizes restitution for disruption caused by threats, and creates an express exemption for certain public servants. The measure primarily affects individuals accused of making threats, online users who disclose personal contact information with harmful intent, and institutions such as schools, houses of worship, government facilities, and event venues.

Sentiment

The available voting history indicates generally positive sentiment toward the bill. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with a clear majority and then advanced again through the Senate Finance, Ways, and Means Committee with only one dissenting vote. That pattern suggests lawmakers broadly supported stronger penalties for mass-violence threats and harmful online disclosures, likely viewing the bill as a public safety measure. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded floor-level or committee-level debate to indicate organized opposition beyond the recorded no votes.

Contention

The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s broad definitions and the scope of conduct it criminalizes. Critics could question whether the definition of “mass violence” is sufficiently precise, whether the statute reaches too many forms of speech or online communication, and whether the posting offense could implicate privacy and First Amendment concerns. Supporters, by contrast, appear to have focused on preventing threats against schools, houses of worship, government sites, and public events, as well as addressing doxxing and intimidation. The recorded committee votes show some opposition, but the available materials do not identify specific legislators or arguments.