In the INTEREST OF A. F. Et Al., Children.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “placing calls with the specific intent to harass” is a regulation of “nonexpressive conduct.”
• explaining that an anti-harassment statute that proscribes 6 harassing conduct does not violate the First Amendment.
• upholding as constitutional a statute that prohibited making telephone calls with the intent to harass, intimidate, or torment another; although the statute at issue contained a speech component, the defendant was convicted for his specific conduct
• discussing cases dealing with intersection between First Amendment rights and harassment laws.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).