From Watts v. KOS Media LLC, decided Tuesday by the Nevada Court of Appeals (Chief Judge Bonnie Bulla, joined by Judges Michael Gibbons and Deborah Westbrook):

Watts sued respondent KOS Media LLC, alleging that it was liable under NRS 41.1347 (Nevada’s anti-doxing statute) for posting and/or facilitating the posting of an article that allegedly contained Watts’ personal identifying information on its website “The Daily KOS.” The post, entitled: “Heartland Fundraising for Tony Watts’ $2,000 Thermometers to Compete with Global Temp Network,” was made by a user named “ClimateDenierRoundup” and contained links to the Zillow listing for Watts’ Nevada residence, as well as its location on Google Maps.

Watts alleged that, due to his status as a well-known climate pundit, the release of his address on the internet increased his risk of death or bodily injury by climate activists, allowing him to recover damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs. Watts later filed a first amended complaint, which included alternative allegations that KOS either posted the article itself through an employee, or “aided and abetted” a third party in creating the article and knew that it contained personal and potentially harmful information prior to posting….

The trial court dismissed this claim, “under NRS 41.1347(6), which provides that ‘[t]his section must not be construed to impose liability on any interactive computer service for any content provided by another person,’” but the appellate court concluded this was premature:

While Watts did include allegations in his complaint that indicated KOS aided and abetted a third party in posting the article; he also included an alternative theory, namely that “an individual associated with or employed by KOS Media LLC, and not a third party posted the content” alongside several other references noting that KOS “created” or “supplied” the content that disseminated his personal identifying information. Further, Watts’ complaint also includes allegations that the disclaimer on the KOS website {“[t]his content is not subject to review by Daily KOS staff prior to publication”} is incorrect, and that “KOS staff has reviewed the subject posting prior to publication and/or after, calling the disclaimer into question.”

Because this alternative theory of liability posits that KOS itself, not a third party, disseminated Watts’ personal identifying information, we conclude the district court erred when it determined that KOS is entitled to statutory immunity under NRS 41.1347(6) at this stage of the process. When treating this allegation as true, KOS fails to demonstrate that the content at issue here was “provided by another person” as required for immunity under the statute.

Advertisement

The court therefore allowed the case to go forward (though of course ultimately KOS might well prevail, for instance if the post was indeed put up by an unrelated third party).

The Nevada doxing statute allows lawsuit by one person against some “other person” when

(a) The other person disseminates any personal identifying information or sensitive information [defined as sexual orientation, transgender status, or HIV status] of the person without the consent of the person, knowing that the person could be identified by such information:

(1) With the intent to aid, assist, encourage, facilitate, further or promote any criminal offense which would be reasonably likely to cause death, bodily injury or stalking; or

(2) With the intent to cause harm to the person and with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the reasonable likelihood that the dissemination of the information may cause death, bodily injury or stalking; and

(b) The dissemination of the personal identifying information or sensitive information:

Advertisement

(1) Would cause a reasonable person to fear the death, bodily injury or stalking of himself or herself or a close relation; or

(2) Causes the death, bodily injury or stalking of the person whose information was disseminated or a close relation of the person.

It also provides exceptions for dissemination:

(a) For the purposes of reporting conduct reasonably believed to be unlawful;

(b) Which depicts a law enforcement officer acting under the color of law or an elected officer of the State of Nevada or any of its political subdivisions acting in an official capacity;

(c) Gathered in the exercise of the constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech and assembly; or

Advertisement

(d) Which is a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern[, meaning] {

1. Communication that is aimed at procuring any governmental or electoral action, result or outcome;
2. Communication of information or a complaint to a Legislator, officer or employee of the Federal Government, this state or a political subdivision of this state, regarding a matter reasonably of concern to the respective governmental entity;
3. Written or oral statement made in direct connection with an issue under consideration by a legislative, executive or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; or
4. Communication made in direct connection with an issue of public interest in a place open to the public or in a public forum,
5. which is truthful or is made without knowledge of its falsehood.}

I think there are good arguments that statutes such as this are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague, but in this appeal KOS Media only raised the service provider immunity argument.

Jeffrey Dickerson represents Watts.

LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — Owners for the plant-based taco shop, Tacotarian, right here in the Las Vegas Valley can now count themselves among a national recognition as Small Business Persons of the Year.

Your winners representing Nevada are…

• Kristen Corral
• Carlos Corral
• Regina Simmons
• Dan Simmons

Each year, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) celebrates outstanding achievements from small business owners and entrepreneurs making a difference in their communities.

“Winning the SBA Small Business Persons of the Year award for Nevada is an incredible honor and a testament to the hard work, passion, and resilience it takes to run a small business today,” the Tacotarian founders said.

What’s next for our winners?

53 winners from each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam are selected each year and invited to ceremonies in Washington, D.C. during National Small Business Week (May 4-10).

It is during these ceremonies that the 2025 National Small Business Person of the Year will be named.

Tacotarian said they’re aiming to bring positive change to the world “one taco at a time.” Since 2018, the plant-based business has expanded to several locations throughout Las Vegas and even to San Diego.

Their work goes further than the Mexican eatery, through ongoing commitments to giving back and advocacy for our neighborhoods.

Local organizations such as Nevada SPCA, Reps and Steps, Foundation for Recovery, Foster Kinship, Farm Animal Sanctuary and more have all felt the helping hand of Tacotarian.

As an avid big-game hunter in Nevada, I have spent countless hours in the wilderness — tracking game, studying migration patterns and admiring the beauty of our state’s diverse basin and range landscapes. For me, hunting is more than a sport; it’s a tradition, a way to connect with nature, and a vital part of wildlife conservation.

Nevada’s wildlife habitats, however, face growing threats from challenges that seem overwhelming — prolonged drought, severe wildfires and the rapid spread of invasive weeds, all of which degrade critical habitats.

Despite these challenges, there are areas where meaningful progress can be made.

The expansion of roads and highways continues to fragment wildlife habitats, creating serious barriers for the animals we value. Yet Nevada has shown that thoughtful solutions are possible. To protect our wildlife and preserve these landscapes for future generations, the state must take decisive action by passing a bill to establish dedicated funding for constructing new wildlife crossings across Nevada.

Wildlife crossings — such as overpasses and underpasses designed to help animals safely traverse busy roadways — are a proven solution to reducing vehicle collisions with wildlife while simultaneously connecting important habitat. These structures are not just beneficial for the animals; they save human lives and prevent costly vehicle damage.

Every year, according to the Nevada Department of Transportation, more than 500 reported wildlife-vehicle collisions occur annually, costing the state close to $20 million. Nevada has a long history of leadership in addressing this issue and has 79 animal crossings in place for both large and small animals, including six overpasses. But without dedicated funding for new hot-spot collision locations, our state risks falling behind as roadways expand and urban development encroaches on critical migration corridors.

In 2023, Gov. Joe Lombardo signed Assembly Bill 12 into law. It created Nevada’s Wildlife Crossing Account and seeded this account with $5 million. The Nevada Department of Transportation is already utilizing these funds to leverage federal funds. While this is a significant step forward, it is only a starting point. A yearly recurring appropriation for wildlife crossings will provide certainty for project planning purposes, accelerating the construction of wildlife crossings where they are needed, keeping roads safe while connecting important habitat.

Critics may argue that funding wildlife crossings is an unnecessary expense, but the data tells a different story. Studies from states across the West show that wildlife crossings can reduce collisions by up to 90 percent. The economic benefits of reducing vehicle damage, medical expenses and insurance costs far outweigh the initial investment in building these structures. Additionally, federal matching funds are available for wildlife infrastructure projects, meaning that state-level investment could be leveraged to bring in additional funding resources. At a time when federal budgets are being drastically cut in search of savings, wildlife crossings make financial sense.

Passing a bill to establish dedicated funding for wildlife crossings is not just a win for hunters — it is a win for all Nevadans. By taking proactive measures, we can reduce collisions, protect motorists and ensure that our state’s treasured wildlife continues to thrive. Conservation is a responsibility we all share, whether you live in Las Vegas or Elko. Let’s not wait for more tragic accidents or further declines in our deer and other wildlife populations before taking action.

Kevin Cabble is a lifelong outdoorsman and board member for the Nevada Wildlife Federation.