Further, the statute does not make unlawful a substantial amount of association and movement. The statute is narrowly drafted to restrict only threatening behavior, with limited infringement on rights to free association and movement. Utah Code Ann. The restrictions this statute may impose on a person's ability to move about and associate freely are limited and justified by the state's compelling interest in protecting its citizens from threatening or harmful behavior. The facial overbreadth doctrine is a limited doctrine to begin with and attenuates further as the prohibited behavior moves from pure speech towards conduct that, even if expressive, may be properly restricted as a legitimate state interest.
Free association exists on a continuum, and can be regulated by the state for compelling interests.
The statute here is comparable to stalking statutes that have been upheld in other states. We are not persuaded that the statute infringes on a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. Therefore, defendant's facial overbreadth challenge fails. The statute is also not unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to defendant. In this case, defendant persisted in making unwanted contact with G.M.M. after he knew that G.M.M. and her parents did not want him to contact her.