is not protected by the First Amendment. See State v. Evans, 672 N.W.2d 328, 330 (Iowa 2003) (rejecting First Amendment challenge to section 708.7(1)(6) (prohibiting harassment by personal contact “without legitimate purpose” and “with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or alarm”), holding defendant’s First Amendment rights do not include a right to exercise his free speech rights “in a manner that is intended to threaten, intimidate, or alarm the subject”); accord, Thorne v. Bailey, 846 F.2d 241, 243 (4th Cir.1988) (“ ‘Prohibiting harassment is not prohibiting speech, because harassment is not ... protected speech. Harassment is not communication, although it may take the form of speech.’ ” (Citation omitted.)); State v. Brown, 207 Ariz. 231, 85 P.3d 109, 111, 114 (Ct.App.2004) (<HOLDING>); State v. Thorne, 175 W.Va. 452, 333 S.E.2d
holding harassment statute that required an intent to harass cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed annoyed or harassed  does not regulate constitutionally protected speech holding that false statements are constitutionally protected holding that washingtons harassment statute was unconstitutionally overbroad because it covered constitutionally protected speech holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected holding that what is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech