No, the law is fair and does not violate free speech. The court explained that this law isn't about stopping people from sharing their opinions. It's about stopping the act of using a phone to invade someone's privacy and harass them. The law is very specific: the call must be anonymous, and the caller's only goal must be to be mean or scary. The court decided that protecting people from being harassed in their own homes is more important than protecting a person's 'right' to make anonymous, nasty phone calls.

No, the law isn't too broad. It's about what you do, like making a phone call to bother someone, not about sharing your thoughts or ideas. The law is clear about what's not allowed and doesn't stop people from saying things that are protected by free speech. People's right to privacy in their homes is more important than the small amount of free speech involved in making unwanted, mean phone calls. The court also points out that it tries to keep laws in place if they can be seen in a way that respects the constitution and what the lawmakers wanted.

In fact, this Court is bound "to resolve all doubts as to the validity of [the] statute in favor of its constitutionality, provided the statute may be given a fair construction that is consistent with the federal and state constitutions as well as with the legislative intent."

—the court addressed the constitutionality, under the First Amendment, of a statute that read: "Whoever by means of telephone communication...[m] akes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number... shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

—the Florida Supreme Court rejected an overbreadth challenge to a statute which forbade "the making of an anonymous telephone call with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass the recipient of the call...."

By incorporating some or all of the following elements into the statutory language, a legislature may limit the statute's reach to avoid a substantial impact upon protected speech: the defendant act with specific criminal intent; the defendant make repeated communications to the victim; the communications cause the victim to suffer a significant or substantial negative …

However, our duty to apply this presumption is dependent on our being able to arrive at a fair construction that is consistent with the federal and state constitutions, as well as legislative intent

To run afoul of the statute, a telephone call must be made not merely to communicate, but `with intent to harass, annoy or alarm'and `in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.'Whether speech actually occurs is irrelevant, since the statute proscribes conduct, whether or not a conversation actually ensues.

Thus, our supreme court and the United States Supreme Court recognizes there is no First Amendment protection for speech that intrudes on the privacy of one's home.

—upholding the constitutionality of FLA. STAT. ง 365.16 (1)(b)(1993), which makes it a crime to make harassing phone calls

No, the statute is not unconstitutionally overbroad. The court reasoned that the statute does not regulate pure speech, but rather proscribes conduct—the act of making an anonymous and harassing telephone call. Because the statute regulates conduct mixed with speech, any potential overbreadth must be 'real and substantial' under the test from Broadrick v. Oklahoma, which it is not. The court found the statute to be narrowly tailored because it requires specific intent to harass, anonymity of the caller, and presupposes an uninvited call to an unwilling listener, thereby protecting the substantial privacy interests of individuals in their homes. This privacy interest outweighs any minimal free speech value associated with unwanted, anonymous, and abusive telephone calls.

No. The statute is not unconstitutionally overbroad because it is directed at conduct, specifically the act of making a telephone call with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass, rather than the communication of opinions or ideas. The statute's application to a whole range of easily identifiable activity that can be constitutionally proscribed demonstrates that its overbreadth is not real and substantial when judged in relation to its legitimate sweep. The privacy interests of individuals to be free from unwanted communication in their homes outweigh the minimal free speech value associated with unwanted, anonymous, abusive telephone calls. The court emphasizes the duty to uphold the statute's constitutionality where it can be fairly construed in a manner consistent with constitutional requirements and legislative intent.

State v. Elder

Premium Feature

Rule of Law:

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

Premium Content

Issue:

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Sundberg

Analysis: