Court Opinion

ID: 9592404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:13:51.563665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:18.042958
License: Public Domain

Baker, A.C.J.
(concurring) — I concur, but write separately to express reservations concerning the word "profane” as used in RCW 9.61.230(2).
Alexander challenges the term "profane” as unconstitutionally overbroad. The trial court defined that term for the jury by an instruction that "[p]rofane language is that language which is degrading, abusive or vulgar”. As so defined, I agree that the term "profane” is not unconstitutionally overbroad. "Profane” has another, common connotation, however. It is frequently used to describe language "[m]anifesting irreverence or disrespect toward the Deity or sacred *844things”. Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary (1966); see also Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1810 (1986).
An effort by the State to criminalize the use of language showing a "disrespect toward the Deity”, even in a nonpublic forum, would not be constitutional for more reasons than overbreadth. Such a law would also violate constitutional prohibitions against aiding the establishment of religion.
Because the "antireligious” connotation of the term "profane” is so common, it is necessary to limit the meaning of the word in a manner similar to the court’s instruction below. I would require such a limiting definition of the word "profane” as a condition of our ruling upholding RCW 9.61.230(2).
Review denied at 127 Wn.2d 1001 (1995).