a person to criminal prosecution under” the harassment statute); Thelen v. State, 272 Ga. 81, 82, 526 S.E.2d 60 (2000) (relying on Coates v. Cincinnati, the court invalidated on vagueness grounds the proscription of specified conduct which “annoys” others); People v. Klick, 66 Ill.2d 269, 5 Ill.Dec. 858, 362 N.E.2d 329 (1977) (invalidating on overbreadth grounds, based on Coates v. Cincinnati and similar cases, a statute proscribing telephone calls with intent to annoy); State v. Bryan, 259 Kan. 143, 147-148, 910 P.2d 212, 216-217 (1996) (pointing out that, since Coates v. Cincinnati, “[o]ther courts have followed the holding in Coates in determining that statutes prohibiting annoying conduct are impermissibly vague”); State v. Jamgochian, 109 R.I. 17, 24, 279 A.2d 923, 927 (1971) (<HOLDING>); May v. State, 765 S.W.2d 438, 440
holding unconstitutional under coates v cincinnati that portion of an ordinance making it unlawful for a person to stand on a sidewalk and inter alia annoy passersby holding unconstitutional an ordinance making it a crime to possess an obscene book without regard to defendants knowledge of books contents holding that a courts order invalidating part of a city billboard ordinance did not moot a claim for damages arising from that invalidated portion of the ordinance holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted holding that both the unlawful possession and unlawful use prongs were met and noting that the firearm transferred to the individual was not registered making the individuals possession of it necessarily unlawful