cause an immediate breach of the peace. Edwards, 84 Wn. App. at 19. The conclusion reached in Edwards is correct, but further analysis is appropriate. A threat conveys an intent to injure others; it does not necessarily incite others to action. By using “fighting words” as the constitutional basis for RCW 9.16.160, the Edwards court left unanswered the questions of who must be incited and to what action in order for a threat to be nonprotected, and the court fell short of specifically adopting a “fighting words” interpretation for RCW 9.16.160. Edwards, 84 Wn. App. at 20. Other Washington decisions have employed a more complete analysis to uphold the same statute on the ground that threats themselves are nonprotected speech. See State v. Young, 83 Wn.2d 937, 941-42, 523 P.2d 934 (1974) (<HOLDING>); State v. Brown, 50 Wn. App. 405, 411, 748
holding that rcw 5152110 does not apply to judicial appeals of penalty assessments holding that maryland law prohibits use of combined reporting holding that rcw 961160 does not prohibit advocating use of force but rather prohibits threats holding that state constitution prohibits substantive use of prearrest silence holding that the first amendment does not protect true threats against the president