Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-427 (2026)

Use of profane, threatening, or indecent language over public airways or by other methods

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person who uses obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or makes any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threatens any illegal or immoral act with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, over any telephone or citizens band radio, in this Commonwealth, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

"Over any telephone" includes, for purposes of this section, any electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message that is received or transmitted by cellular telephone or other wireless telecommunications device.

Code 1950, § 18.1-238; 1960, c. 358; 1964, c. 577; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1976, c. 312; 1984, c. 592; 2010, c. 565; 2011, c. 246.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Rives v. Com., 726 S.E.2d 248 (Va. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rives v. Com., 726 S.E.2d 248 (Va. 2012). · cites it 17× “John Lombe Rives was arrested in Virginia Beach in June 2010 for a violation of Code § 18.2-427, "Use of profane, threatening or indecent language over public airways," a Class 1 misdemeanor.”

Barson v. Commonwealth, 711 S.E.2d 220 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 44× “1-238, the predecessor to current Code § 18.2-427. Code § 18.1-238 provided, "if any person shall curse or abuse anyone, or use vulgar, profane, threatening or indecent language over any telephone in this state, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Perkins v. Commonwealth, 402 S.E.2d 229 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 16× “On May 18, 1989, the defendant was convicted by the court on two misdemeanor charges of using obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language or threatening an illegal or immoral act with the intent to coerce, intimidate or harass over the telephone in violation…”

Barson v. Com., 726 S.E.2d 292 (Va. 2012). · cites it 13× “7:1 concerning harassment by computer, and Code § 18.2-427 concerning obscene telephone calls, do not appear in Article 5 or in any other part of Chapter 8.”

Lee Antonio Turner v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 802 S.E.2d 814 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “2 and for misdemeanor use of profane, threatening, or indecent language over public airways in violation of Code § 18.2-427. He was continually held in custody for the duration of the prosecution.”

Allman v. Commonwealth, 596 S.E.2d 531 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 14× “Allman (appellant) appeals from his bench trial conviction for making an obscene telephone call with an intent to coerce, intimidate or harass in violation of Code § 18.2-427. On appeal, he contends the evidence was insufficient to prove his language was obscene or that he acted…”

Lofgren v. Commonwealth, 684 S.E.2d 223 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 14× “Jon Eric Lofgren (appellant) appeals his conviction for violating Code § 18.2-427, use of profane, threatening or indecent language over the telephone.”

Larwan Badru Bonner v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 745 S.E.2d 162 (Va. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Bonner was also convicted of using threatening language over the phone in violation of Code § 18.2-427 and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Code § 18.”

Penny v. Commonwealth, 370 S.E.2d 314 (Va. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “— George Edward Penny was convicted in Prince William County Circuit Court for making obscene phone calls in violation of Code § 18.2-427. The primary evidence introduced against Penny consisted of computer-generated “call trap” records which designated the residence in which…”

Richard Turner Moter v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 737 S.E.2d 538 (Va. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “2d 248, 249-50 (2012) (distinguishing Batson and interpreting identical statutory language in Code § 18.2-427). B. Appellate Standard op Review Though the interpretation of statutory terms involves questions of law, whether a particular communication “appeals to the ‘prurient…”

Lisa Alexander v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 26× “2-164; and two counts of making threatening/obscene phone calls in violation of Code § 18.2-427. On appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.”

Alex Vaughan Airhart v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 10× “7:1, we have interpreted a similarly worded statute, Code § 18.2-427. It provides: If any person shall use obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act with the…”

Show all 25 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.