,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
9th Cir., 2-1, affirms a Washington conviction for telephone harassment, reasons that the law criminalizes the conduct of harassment, not merely speech, which would otherwise have First Amendment protection. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin… 
The case is about a Marine vet who, after various disputes with the VA, claims that it owes him millions of dollars and that failure to pay means he now owns the local VA hospital.
It's not his first rodeo. The question is whether his phone calls are protected speech.
It's not his first rodeo. The question is whether his phone calls are protected speech.
The maj. op. suggests that the first phone call couldn't have been harassing, but by the third call to the same secretary (after she hung up on him and then he hung up on her) he had the requisite intent to harass her via telephone, regardless of his language.
Dissenting Judge Tashima argues that this was speech, no matter how vulgar, about gov't action, which should be protected speech.
