State v. Fielden

The majority correctly holds “that the language in OCGA § 16-11-34 (a) is not vague: it is clear and unambiguous.” Maj. op. p. 445. *449However, I cannot agree that the language is so overbroad that interpreting it narrowly so as to exclude constitutionally protected expression “would be less a matter of reasonable judicial construction than a matter of substantial legislative revision.” Maj. op. p. 448.

As Justice Thompson recognized in Howard v. State, 272 Ga. 242, 244 (1) (527 SE2d 194) (2000), “before considering whether [a] statute that affects protected speech is [unconstitutionally]…