> Verbal harassment is a crime. Someone can serve a year in jail for it the state of Colorado
Would you be so kind as to link to the text of the law in question? I expect that a critical part of the law will be something along the lines of "The harasser follows around the harassed, despite requests by the harassed that the harasser desist.", which makes it more than just a restriction on speech. If it's a _pure_ restriction on speech, then I expect that it will not survive a First Amendment challenge.
States can put whatever law they like into the books. States often have laws on the books that wouldn't withstand a Constitutional challenge. For example, even after Lawrence v. Texas, anti-sodomy laws were on the books in _many_ US states. If the state doesn't voluntarily remove a law, it takes expensive, slow court challenges to get rid of them.
For a more recent example of nasty state law that is unlikely to survive long-term, look at the Texas Heartbeat Act.
The fact that a state _really_ wants to prohibit something doesn't override Federal law that asserts that that something is _not_ to be prohibited. But -sadly- those fights frequently have to slog through the courts, so they don't happen nearly as often as they should.
“ (1) A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:
…
(b) In a public place directs obscene language or makes an obscene gesture to or at another person
…
(2) Harassment pursuant to subsection (1) of this section is a class 3 misdemeanor; except that harassment is a class 1 misdemeanor if the offender commits harassment pursuant to subsection (1) of this section with the intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person's actual or perceived race; color; religion; ancestry; national origin; physical or mental disability, as defined in section 18-9-121(5)(a) ; or sexual orientation, as defined in section 18-9-121(5)(b) .“
Would you be so kind as to link to the text of the law in question? I expect that a critical part of the law will be something along the lines of "The harasser follows around the harassed, despite requests by the harassed that the harasser desist.", which makes it more than just a restriction on speech. If it's a _pure_ restriction on speech, then I expect that it will not survive a First Amendment challenge.
States can put whatever law they like into the books. States often have laws on the books that wouldn't withstand a Constitutional challenge. For example, even after Lawrence v. Texas, anti-sodomy laws were on the books in _many_ US states. If the state doesn't voluntarily remove a law, it takes expensive, slow court challenges to get rid of them.
For a more recent example of nasty state law that is unlikely to survive long-term, look at the Texas Heartbeat Act.
The fact that a state _really_ wants to prohibit something doesn't override Federal law that asserts that that something is _not_ to be prohibited. But -sadly- those fights frequently have to slog through the courts, so they don't happen nearly as often as they should.