Court Opinion

ID: 9658925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:22:25.443806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:01.713099
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
¶ 65. (concurring). I agree with the majority's First Amendment analysis and its conclusion that the speech in this case is not a true threat, but is rather speech subject to First Amendment protection. However, the majority unnecessarily applies Wis. Stat. § 947.01 and erroneously concludes that the speech at issue would otherwise constitute disorderly conduct.
¶ 66. The statutory discussion is not warranted because the majority's First Amendment conclusions, alone, require reversal of the court of appeals. Moreover, I disagree with the conclusion the majority draws in its application of the statute. I do not believe that Douglas D.'s conduct in writing the fictional story con*249stitutes disorderly conduct. Accordingly, I do not join in the majority's application of § 947.01 to the facts at hand.
¶ 67. I am authorized to state that SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE, joins this concurring opinion.