law will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections. Id. ¶14 Determining whether a law prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech involves striking a balance between competing social interests. Id. “[W]e must weigh the amount of protected speech proscribed by the [law] against the amount of unprotected speech that the [law] legitimately prohibits.” Id. The policy concern is that the threat of enforcement of a law prohibiting some amount of constitutionally protected speech will deter or chill such speech. Id. at 8. 3. Overbreadth Analysis ¶15 We engage in a four-part analysis to determine whether a law is facially overbroad under the First Amendment. First, we must determine whether the challenged law actually prohibits speech. See Immelt, 173 Wn.2d at 7 (<HOLDING>). Here, RCW 9A.40.090 clearly prohibits certain
holding that horn honking may rise to the level of speech holding any improper delegation did not rise to level of plain error holding thirty days in disciplinary segregation does not rise to the level of punishment invoking the due process clause holding a transfer or reassignment may rise to the level of an adverse employment condition if it is a significant change in working conditions holding that counsels failure to advise the defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea cannot rise to the level of constitutionally ineffective assistance