47 U.S.C. 223 criminalizes specified obscene or harassing communications and certain misuse of telephone or telecommunications facilities. It is not a general federal ban on rude messages. The charged subsection, required intent, and interstate or foreign communication elements matter. [1]
The main prohibited conduct
Section 223(a) addresses, among other conduct, certain obscene communications, undisclosed-identity communications intended to abuse, threaten, or harass a specific person, repeated ringing intended to harass, and repeated communications made solely to harass. It also reaches knowing permission to use a facility for prohibited activity with the required intent. [1]
For example, a legitimate business dispute does not become a federal offense merely because the recipient dislikes a call. Repetition, anonymity, content, purpose, and the statutory communication requirements must be examined together.
Penalties depend on the subsection
The principal subsection (a) offense carries a fine under Title 18, up to two years’ imprisonment, or both. Commercial obscene or indecent telephone services have separate provisions and defenses. Do not apply one subsection’s maximum to every communication covered by the section. General federal fine rules can also matter. [1] [2]
What evidence should be preserved?
Retain complete message threads, recordings lawfully obtained, call logs, identifying information, and context before and after the disputed communications. Cropped screenshots may omit evidence bearing on intent. Constitutional speech protections and decisions invalidating older provisions must also be considered before treating every printed clause as enforceable in every setting.
Choose the correct remedy for the conduct
A harassing-call complaint, a threat report, and a civil request to stop unwanted contact may involve different authorities and proof. Identify whether the issue is repeated ringing, anonymous communications, commercial content, or a particular threatening message. Preserve the original format and timestamps when possible; a summary that someone “kept calling” may omit whether the statutory repetition and purpose requirements exist. Providers’ records and actual message content can answer different questions. A person facing a charge should obtain the cited subsection before assuming that an exception or penalty associated with commercial telephone services applies to an ordinary personal communication. [1]
Unauthorized access is a different issue under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Access to stored messages raises separate questions under the Stored Communications Act. Neither should be substituted for the elements of a harassment charge.
Primary sources
Sources checked: October 31, 2026.