Court Opinion

ID: 9546735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:34:48.157457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:49.132490
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
Although I agree in the majority’s disposition of appellant’s case, I write separately to address the question of constitutionally protected speech. Initially, it should be noted that 22 O.S.Supp.1986, § 60.1-7 seeks to regulate conduct rather than speech, as evidenced by the definitions of “domestic abuse.” The Act attempts to control physical harm caused by family members, including but not limited to conduct which constitutes assault, rape or aggravated assault and battery. See 22 O.S. Supp.1986, § 60.1. Even if this were to be considered a regulation of speech, it is clear that words “which by their very utterance inflict injury” are not constitutionally protected. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 769, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942); Harrington v. State, 763 P.2d 700 (Okla.Crim.App.1988.) Accordingly, I concur.