Use of profane, threatening, etc., language over the telephone; repeated telephone contact, penalty.
Summary
SB1298 would amend Virginia’s law on abusive telephone communications, expanding and clarifying the offense of using obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, indecent, or threatening language over the telephone or citizens band radio. The bill expressly defines “over any telephone” to include electronically transmitted messages received or sent by cellular phones or other wireless devices, and it also defines “robocall” as an automated call using both a computerized autodialer and a prerecorded message.
The bill keeps the existing Class 1 misdemeanor penalty for a single act of prohibited language or threats made with intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass. It also preserves and clarifies the more serious Class 6 felony for repeated conduct: 50 or more calls to the same person within 48 hours, or 50 or more calls to two or more family or household members within that period. In addition, it creates a rebuttable presumption that robocalls used to violate these provisions were made with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass.
Impact
If enacted, SB1298 would broaden the reach of Code of Virginia § 18.2-427 to cover modern wireless and electronically transmitted communications, not just traditional telephone calls and CB radio. It would make it easier for prosecutors to apply the statute to text-like or device-based communications that fit the bill’s definition of “over any telephone,” and it would strengthen enforcement against repeated harassing contact by adding a presumption tied to robocalls. The bill also anticipates a possible increase in incarceration or commitment costs, with a minimum fiscal impact noted for sentencing purposes.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests mixed but ultimately unfavorable committee sentiment: the Senate Courts of Justice Committee passed the bill by indefinitely with an 8-6 vote. That outcome indicates there was meaningful support for addressing harassing and threatening communications, but not enough consensus to advance the measure. No committee transcript is available here, so the record reflects the vote more than detailed debate.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on how far the criminal statute should extend into modern communications and whether the bill’s expanded definitions and robocall presumption were too broad. Supporters would view the measure as a needed update to address harassment through cell phones, wireless devices, and automated calling systems, while opponents may have been concerned about overcriminalization, proof issues, or the risk of sweeping in conduct beyond the most serious harassment. The close committee vote suggests disagreement over balancing victim protection against criminal-law expansion.