Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device ... to another person is ... guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.
The posts, the California AG's office argues, were "were made with the specific intent to annoy and harass the members of the ICSC," because Feigin "was not trying to engage in any kind of political discussion but instead trying to vex members of the ICSC with his thoughts about their religion." The posts are criminal because they constitute "repeated harassment from those who wish to mock and disparage their religion," and, "[r]ather than attempt to engage in discussion or debate," are "cruel and pointedly aimed at dismissing an entire religion and those who practice it."
What could be more "intolerable" than for [the] ICSC Communications Director ... to check the ICSC's Facebook page and discover that someone has written "PRACTICING ISLAM CAN SLOW OR EVEN REVERSE THE PROCESS OF HUMAN EVOLUTION" as the Defendant in this case did .... Or how about ... "Filthy muslim shit has no place in western civilization." This is exactly the kind of repeated, annoying, and harassing electronic communication that PC 653m(b) is meant to deter. Protected speech? Political speech? Defendant's posts on the ICSC Facebook page are neither of those things.
And the government's argument makes clear that it's going after Feigin for the content -- indeed the viewpoint -- of his speech: "The mere content and nature of the posts establish that they are not made in 'good faith' as Defendant would suggest but are meant to annoy and harass."