nudity or sexual conduct when he sends unsolicited through the mail or otherwise unsolicited causes to be delivered material depicting nudity or sexual conduct to any person or residence or office unless there is imprinted upon the envelope or container of such material in not less than eight-point boldface type the following notice: “Notice — The material contained herein depicts nudity or sexual conduct. If the viewing of such material could be offensive to the addressee, this container should not be opened but returned to the sender.”* To start, we note that OCGA § 16-12-81 is not inapplicable to electronic text messaging merely because that form of communication did not exist when OCGA § 16-12-81 was enacted in 1970. See Collins v. Mills, 198 Ga. 18, 22 (30 SE2d 866) (1944) (<HOLDING>). Because the words of OCGA § 16-12-81 at issue
holding that a plaintiffs failure to invoke  1983 is fatal to the claim because the constitutional provision that was allegedly violated does not itself create a means for recovery for a violation of that provision holding that interpretation of a constitutional provision begins with examination of the provisions explicit language and that a court must endeavor to construe the provision in a manner consistent with the intent of the framers and voters holding that defendants testimony that he did not see a provision in the agreement because the plaintiffcounterparty failed to direct him to the provision was insufficient as a matter of law to establish fraud and defendant was therefore bound to the terms of the provision holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them holding that pullman abstention should not be invoked to avoid interpreting state law constitutional questions when the provision of the state constitution at issue mirrors a provision of the federal constitution