Id. Here there was clearly a jury question under the stipulated facts whether Baker contacted Krause to gather factual information about Krause’s knowledge and views of the sentencing system, or whether the contact was intended to intimidate or alarm Krause in retaliation for her role in convicting Schoo. The district court should not have resolved this factual dispute in ruling on the constitutional issue, since the constitutional challenge to the statute was raised in a motion to adjudicate law points. Motions to adjudicate law points may not be used to resolve factual disputes, only legal issues. See State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570, 579 (Iowa 1980). The real question here is whether the State can, consistently with the First Amendment, punish Baker for conduct that, while ka 1997) (<HOLDING>). Other courts have rejected First Amendment
holding that statute which prohibited polygamy did not violate first amendment holding that a law did not violate the first amendment because it did not burden the exchange of ideas and noting most laws restricting a states initiative process would not implicate the first amendment holding statute criminalizing speech intended to influence a juror did not violate the first amendment holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech holding that the auuw statute did not violate the defendants second amendment rights