The state’s attorney general defended the move, arguing that the law is not about suppressing political opinion, but about preventing language that authorities believe has crossed the line from expression into coercion. “We are responding to real-world harm,” the attorney general said, emphasizing that police would retain discretion in enforcement.

Critics, however, say the law dangerously blurs the line between speech and criminal conduct. Civil liberties organizations warned that the vague framing could open the door to selective enforcement, chilling lawful protest and political dissent.

Legal scholars have raised concerns about how courts would interpret intent. Because the phrase itself is not universally agreed upon as inherently violent, prosecutors would need to demonstrate context, audience, and perceived impact — a process that could vary widely from case to case.

The controversy has intensified due to the proposed penalty. A maximum sentence of two years in jail places the offense in the same category as serious public order crimes, prompting critics to question whether the punishment fits the alleged harm.