It should go without saying, but death threats are not acceptable means of communicating with elected officials.

Last week, state Rep. Deb Conroy, D-Villa Park, shared a litany of scathing emails, social media messages and voicemails regarding a recently introduced bill. Some could be published in the newspaper, many others were reported to the Illinois State Police and the DuPage County State’s Attorney’s Office.

The rhetoric, if that’s even a fair term, is unfortunately not surprising to anyone who has been paying attention to politics in recent years. Social media comment threads are a particularly special sort of a trash bin fire, but there is a line between expressing anger and making direct contact to personally pledge harm.

That many of the critics in this instance seem to misunderstand the legislation – egged on by elected officials and candidates who ought to know better – is secondary to the larger point. So is the actual topic of the legislation. It’s possible to contact a lawmaker without making a criminal threat, and one person who can’t grasp that distinction is too many.

For context, the legislation is House Bill 4640. The anger draws from a belief the law would give the state new isolation and quarantine powers. Opponents highlighted bill language to bolster fears of placing unvaccinated Illinoisans under armed guard. Except the fear-mongering passage is already established law.

Conroy said the point of her amendment is giving “local health departments the ability to employ local health solutions to share data. It does not give any local body the authority to violate someone’s privacy rights and certainly does not allow for anyone to be detained.”

Anger is understandable. Plenty of people are fed up with the way governments are managing the pandemic. Not everyone is an experienced reader of legislation. But that confusion and frustration is all the more reason to take a pause, make sure you fully understand the situation and then weigh the merits of making a statement you might one day hear as it’s read at your criminal defense trial.

Conroy might’ve precluded the firestorm with a flurry of press explaining the proposal before filing, but it’s safe to assume a degree of opposition no matter what she did, and no strategy she did or didn’t employ warrants her and her staff being made to fear for their safety.

Such scenarios are precisely why one of this column’s guiding principles (in addition to encouraging voting and seeking public information) is fostering communications with elected officials. If you already have a relationship with your representative’s office, you can ask questions before filing a witness slip (or a death threat).

Government is collaborative, and so is society. Death threats have no place in either.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Media. Follow him on Twitter @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.