City of Seattle v. Huff

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that telephone calls threatening physical injury or property damage “with the intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass” was protected speech
• holding that an ordinance prohibiting harassing telephone calls withstands free speech challenges because it is reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and is viewpoint neutral
• holding that an ordinance was void for vagueness because whether a violation occurs \depend[s] solely on the subjective feeling of annoyance or disturbance by a particular person or neighborhood\
• rejecting claims that ordinance prohibiting harassing telephone calls violated Washington Constitution article I, section 5
• upholding the telephone harassment ordinance at issue because the telephone is not a public forum
• the language of a statute challenged as void for vagueness is considered in the context of the statute as a whole

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).