When a 16-year-old boy was arrested who was believed to be planning a shooting at Bend High School, Deschutes County District Attorney John Hummel said it was a struggle to find the appropriate statute to charge him.

Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, proposed an amendment to Senate Bill 1543 to clear up the ambiguity. He would essentially make a threat to a school a felony.

That may be an appropriate change to keep students and school staff safe. But it could easily run afoul of free speech protections. Legislators were right to put off consideration of the idea this session to give themselves time for a fuller debate next year.

Bend Police say Zachariah James Mello Johnson, a student at Marshall High School, made threats on social media that he wanted to shoot several students. After police learned of the threats, they visited his home. They found guns in the home, though Johnson did not have access to them. He was arrested and initially charged with disorderly conduct.

Under Oregon law, it’s one thing if a person makes a threat and takes steps to carry it out. But when a person makes a threat and does not take concrete action, it is more difficult to charge them with certain crimes. Oregon courts have found, for instance, that the crime of menacing requires that the defendant intended to cause fear. But how can prosecutors get into a defendant’s head and know the individual’s intent?

Knopp and Hummel discussed the problem. Hummel said a threat to harm people at a school can alarm and frighten hundreds or thousands of people — students, staff, parents and law enforcement. He believes it should be treated at the felony level. That is an important distinction that makes it easier to hold people — particularly juveniles — in custody until trial. That better ensures the public is protected.

Hummel found that some states have a crime of making what they call a terroristic threat. Under California law, a person that willfully threatens to commit a crime which would result in death or great bodily injury of another “even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out” can be imprisoned for up to a year. Knopp’s proposal is narrower, referencing a threat to cause a “mass casualty event.”

Hummel said Oregon’s law would need to be written carefully to not conflict with the state’s strong free speech protections. The problem could come when a student is chatting with another on social media and joking about shooting up a school.

The joke would be in extremely poor taste. But when would it be right to lock that student up? How would prosecutors know when somebody was joking and when to take it seriously?

The answers are not easy, and that’s why legislators were right to be cautious.