Opinion ID: 1196196
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Act of Harassment Encompasses Protected Communications

Text: We turn to the definition of act of harassment under the statute. The trial court found that act of harassment was undefined by the statute, and that the phrase encompasses speech and conduct that are constitutionally protected. We agree. We look to the plain meaning of the terms in order to determine whether they encompass protected communications. The term harassment is synonymous with vex, trouble, or annoy. See Webster's, supra, at 1031; see also Black's Law Dictionary 721 (7th ed.1999) (defining harassment as conduct that is directed at a specific person that annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose). This broad meaning of the term applies to a wide range of communications and conduct, many of which are protected by the First Amendment. For example, forecasting a change in weather, engaging in a political discussion, or discouraging a witness from lying on the stand might vex, trouble, or annoy a person protected by section 18-8-706, but such communications are protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g., People v. Smith, 862 P.2d 939, 942 (Colo.1993) (finding that subsection of harassment statute was anything but narrowly drawn and concluding that statute covered protected speech); Bolles v. People, 189 Colo. 394, 398, 541 P.2d 80, 83 (1975) (finding that forecasting the weather or predicting political trends, for instance, could alarm a person, but are still protected speech). Thus, we conclude that act of harassment encompasses protected communications.