1. Whether § 1513(e) is facially overbroad in that, as interpreted by the court of appeals, the statute can be violated by mere speech alone.

2. Whether a conviction under § 1513(e) is unconstitutional as applied to a person who was convicted under that law for assisting in the publication online of the post-arrest interviews of two informants without any further non-speech conduct.

3. Whether § 1513 is unconstitutionally vague in that its prohibition against "any action harmful," even with a retaliatory intent, fails to provide adequate notice of what the law prohibits and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

Whether Section 1513(e) of Title 18 is facially overbroad, unconstitutionally vague, and violates First Amendment protections when applied to speech-based actions