Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified
Risks
- No material direct effect identified
StateIndianaEnacted
SB 140: Public safety.
Vaneta Becker
SB 140 status: Enacted — Signed by the Governor (updated Mar 12, 2026).
Source
OpenStates
Confidence
Low
Analysis basis
OpenStates summary
01
What this bill does
Official summary alongside an AI-generated read on where it stands and why.
Overall Score
54OUT OF 100
Score:54/100 civic fit
Risk:Moderate Risk
Impact:Moderate Impact 50/100
Constitutionality50%
Bipartisan50%
Public opinion50%
Bill summary
Amends the definition of "threat" in the intimidation statute to include posting a person's personal information on a social media platform with the intent to cause: (1) bodily injury to the person; (2) damage to the person's property; or (3) the commission of a crime against the person. Increases the penalty for intimidation if committed against a legislator.
02
Impact analysis
✦ AI analysisModeled effects across six domains, estimated from bill text and comparable legislation.
Economy
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified
Risks
- No material direct effect identified
Society
Mixed / Neutral
60%
Benefits
- Protects individuals from targeted harassment
- Discourages the practice of doxing
- Enhances safety against physical violence
Risks
- Potential chilling effect on online speech
- Ambiguity in interpreting intent in social posts
- Risk of selective or biased enforcement
Technology Industry
Critical outlook
40%
Benefits
- Encourages platforms to remove harmful content
- Reduces abusive behavior on digital services
- Improves safety standards for high-profile users
Risks
- Increased compliance burden for platform moderation
- Ambiguity regarding intermediary liability for user speech
- Complexity in adjudicating 'intent' in content
Civic Accountability
Mixed / Neutral
45%
Benefits
- Protects elected officials from targeted intimidation
- Ensures a safer environment for public governance
- Deters harassment of legislative representatives
Risks
- Creates a perceived barrier between public and officials
- Potential for political abuse of intimidation definitions
- Reduced public transparency if dissent is chilled
Public Health & Safety
Positive outlook
70%
Benefits
- Criminalizes specific threats of bodily injury
- Reduces the risk of targeted crime against individuals
- Improves deterrents against property destruction
Risks
- Reactive enforcement does not address root causes
- Difficulty in proving specific intent in digital contexts
- Potential for misapplication in non-threatening discourse
03
How trustworthy & consequential it is
Sourcing already shown above, this is what the analysis found worth flagging.
Source
OpenStates
Official bill text or data from OpenStates.
Confidence
Low
Information is limited or incomplete.
Analysis basis
OpenStates summary
Source used for this bill's analysis.
Source note
LegiScan returned a PDF-only document. PDF extraction is not enabled in this build, so the pipeline used a safer fallback.
Analysis scope
Analysis based on summary only
04
Where it stands
Official recordSigned by the Governor
- IntroducedComplete
- CommitteeComplete
- Chamber votesComplete
- Final agreementComplete
- GovernorComplete
- EnactedComplete
05
How it affects your district
✦ Personalized
Set your location
Add your district to see how this bill may affect your community and who to contact.
Your Representatives
Your representatives appear here once you add your location.
06
Take action
Contact your representatives
Let them know how you feel about this bill.
Share your view
Join the discussion and see what others are saying.
Track this bill
Stay updated on progress and changes.