The Pennsylvania Superior Court in a 2-1 decision has upheld the conviction and short prison sentence of a Three Springs-area man charged with two counts of harassment for distributing a wanted poster and several letters depicting a neighbor in rather crude terms.

Superior Court Judges James G. Colins and Jack A. Panella upheld a decision by a Huntingdon County Judge who found John William Collins, 77, guilty and sentenced him to 15 days in prison and a fine of $600.

Collins was charged with harassment for preparing a “wanted poster” in which he referred to a neighbor as having a “goat face” and other insulting features and placing the poster on a bulletin board in the local post office.

He also attempted to distribute flyers relating the same message by placing them in 15 mailboxes.

The poster and flyers were intercepted by a post office clerk who removed the poster from the bulletin board and tossed it in the trash and by a mail carrier who removed the flyers from the mailboxes.

Collins admitted during a two-day bench trial before Judge George N. Zanic that his publications were an attempt to get back at the neighbor, whom he accused of spreading lies about him.

In his appeal to the Superior Court, Collins was represented by Huntingdon attorney Christopher B. Wencker.

The defense challenged Zanic’s finding that Collins was guilty on two counts of harassment, noting that the publications never reached the neighbor and arguing that Collins’ opinion of his neighbor was protected by the First Amendment right to free speech.

Superior Court Judge Deborah A. Kunselman in a dissent stated, “Although the trial court (Zanic) correctly interpreted Pennsylvania’s harassment statute, the First Amendment preempts that state law and bars Mr. Collins’ prosecution and conviction on these facts.”

Kunselman recommended Zanic’s finding be reversed and Collins acquitted and discharged.

The defense contended that because the publications never reached the neighbor the convictions against Collins should be overturned due to lack of sufficient evidence.

Judges Panella and Colins, ruling as the majority, explained that Pennsylvania’s harassment law does not require an interaction between harasser and victim and they stated, “This court may not add provisions which the Legislature has omitted.”

“The issue before us is whether the harassment offense of which Collins was convicted requires that the harassing, annoying or alarming communication reach its victim in order for a crime to occur.”

They ruled it does not need to reach the victim.

In addressing the free speech issue, Panella and Colins stated that the defendant’s opinion of his neighbor was not protected speech.

“Crucial in our determination that Collins was engaged in unprotected speech is the fact that he identified (the neighbor’s) home address and the make, year, color and license plate number of (the victim’s) vehicle.

The inclusion of such information, the majority stated, “served no other apparent purpose than as an invitation for the public to confront (the neighbor) at his residence or during his travels in the community.”

The majority judges also upheld the 15-day prison sentence as being well within the statutory sentence for harassment.

Kunselman, in her defense of Collins’ free speech rights, cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision that pointed out, as a nation the United States has “chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

Sanctioned speech includes “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting ‘fighting’ word — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace,” she explained.

Calling Collins’ publications “an immature rant,” Kunselman stated they did not stir anybody to anger or hostility.

“The incident created no possibility that the peace would be breached by violence against Mr. Collins or anyone else,” she wrote. “Any reasonable reader would interpret them for what they are — childish (even absurd) vitriol and the opinions of someone who dislikes (his neighbor).”

Defense attorney Wencker said he has not yet decided to seek review of the case.