What’s Going On?
Imagine this: You’re running for city council. During a heated campaign rally, you say something like, “Career politicians are destroying this country, and we need to fight back against those who threaten our way of life.”
The next day, you’re accused of making threats against your opponent’s life and charged with a misdemeanor.
Sound far-fetched? Not if Assembly Bill 123 becomes law in Nevada.
This new bill aims to punish political candidates who “threaten the life of any other person” during campaign speeches. But here’s the kicker – threatening someone’s life is already illegal in Nevada under existing harassment laws.
So why create a new law that does the same thing? Good question.
What’s Behind This Bill?
This bill didn’t come out of nowhere. Some political observers point to recent campaign controversies that may have inspired it.
In 2022, Sigal Chattah, the Republican nominee for attorney general, defended her statement that Democratic incumbent Aaron Ford “should be hanging from a crane.” The comment sparked intense debate about the boundaries of political speech.
Chattah later explained her statement was a figure of speech expressing frustration with corruption, not a literal threat. Nevertheless, the incident became a flashpoint in discussions about political rhetoric.
Now, less than three years later, Assembly Bill 123 appears designed to create new legal consequences for similar campaign statements – even though threatening someone’s life is already illegal under current law.
Why Conservatives Should Care
This bill is a perfect example of government overreach – creating new laws when perfectly good ones already exist.
The bill’s actual language prohibits a person from “during any speech or other communication made in the course of his or her political campaign, threaten the life of any other person.” It requires this be done “with conscious disregard for the substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm to another caused by his or her speech or communication.”
The bill’s vague wording raises serious red flags. What exactly counts as “threatening the life” of someone? Could passionate political speech or colorful figures of speech be twisted into legal threats?
Political speech needs breathing room. Our founding fathers knew this. They protected speech most strongly in the political arena because that’s where free expression matters most in a democracy.
What The Other Side Is Saying
Supporters claim AB123 would create a “safer political environment.” They point to increasingly heated rhetoric in campaigns.
Assemblyhuman Hanadi Nadeem (D) who introduced the bill, hasn’t publicly explained why current laws aren’t sufficient. Critics suggest this silence speaks volumes.
Supporters might argue that the Chattah incident demonstrates why specific regulation of campaign speech is needed. But opponents counter that using one controversial statement to justify broad new speech restrictions is a dangerous path.
The Fine Print
The bill states a person can’t “threaten the life of any other person” with “conscious disregard for the substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm.”
The bill does add that:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed as to prohibit a person from engaging in any constitutionally protected exercise of free speech, including political hyperbole.”
But the question remains: who decides what counts as protected “political hyperbole” versus a criminal threat?
First offense? Misdemeanor. Second offense? Gross misdemeanor.
But existing Nevada law (NRS 200.571) already makes it illegal to threaten “bodily injury” to another person. The penalties are identical.
So what’s really changed? Just the focus on political candidates, which raises serious questions about whether some politicians are trying to shield themselves from criticism.
What Happens Next?
The bill will be heard Tuesday, March 18, at 3:30pm in Carson City, with video links to Las Vegas.
If passed, this law could create a chilling effect on political speech. Candidates might self-censor out of fear their words could be twisted into “threats.”
Remember, vague laws are dangerous laws. They can be selectively enforced against people with unpopular views.
What You Can Do
Here’s how to make your voice heard:
- Attend the hearing in Carson City or Las Vegas.
- Call (888) 475-4499 and use Meeting ID 867 6086 9565 to provide testimony (press *9 to join the queue).
- Submit written opinions through the Nevada Legislature website.
- Email committee members directly.
When contacting lawmakers, keep it simple:
“Vote no on AB123. It creates unnecessary duplication of existing law and threatens free political speech.”
Freedom rarely disappears overnight. It erodes slowly, one seemingly small restriction at a time. This bill may look minor, but the principle is huge – do we want government deciding what political speech crosses the line, or do we trust existing laws and voters’ good judgment?
As Americans who value limited government, the answer should be clear.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
