With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 9.61.160 does not proscribe a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech. It is therefore not unconstitutionally overbroad. Affirmed. Morgan and Bridgewater, JJ., concur. 1 84 Wn. App 5. 2 Smith appears to argue that the jury should have been instructed not to convict him unless it found that he used “fighting words.” Smith, however, has not assigned error to the jury instructions. 3 The court reached this conclusion because it defined “threat” as used in RCW 9.61.160 as including a threat to injure property. Edwards, 84 Wn. App. at 12. This type of threat may be constitutionally protected. See Stephenson, 89 Wn. App. at 801-02 (finding that threats to harm another’s business, financial condition, or personal relationships are protected speech); Knowles, 91 Wn. App. at 374 (<HOLDING>). RCW 9.61.160, however, is clearly concerned

A: holding that the first amendment does not protect true threats against the president
B: holding that threats standing alone  constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm 
C: holding that expansion of the ada to encompass threats to self is untenable because the ada mentions only threats to others
D: holding that threats to inflict financial or personal harm are not true threats where no ones personal safety is threatened
D.