The Supreme Court of Wisconsin (Your own link) says that this was reversed.
My 1st take at this point is the "no contact whatsoever" was reversed because of the broadness of the injunction not the fact found was wrong. This text "Thus, we conclude the injunction is drafted too broadly and is therefore invalid." is why.
The decision from 1987 also has language that is more supportive of 'just talk is not harassment':
The judge stated at the hearing that Salamone's yelling across the street constituted harassment. (this would be riding the ride - the ride went to the wisconsin supremes. Is that a ride one wants to take?)
The money shot for "just speech" from a Wisconsin Supreme Court Judge is this:
I conclude that secs. 813.125(1)(b) and 947.013(1)(b), Stats. 1985-86, define harassment to encompass conduct and acts only, not verbal communication. Because this case involves only speech, the case does not fall within the statutes as I believe the statutes should be interpreted.
The "anti money shot" is this:
The majority needlessly reads a constitutional defect into the statutes by construing the statutes to cover verbal communications.
The position of covering verbal was the majority position: ouch.
I'd have to go pull the file if it even exists anymore to see if your take is correct the whole damn thing got reversed VS the injunction got tossed due to the broad language. And that's been part of the problem with Patrick and Jackie - they have not bothered to look at caselaw or even filed cases to see what arguments the DA takes. And even if one looks at the caselaw - the statute has changed from '87 to include electronic contact like it is 'conduct and acts'. Not to mention the 2 SCOWI judges who had the 'speech only' take are gone.
I cited it to point out what cases are close/on point to what a 'legitimate purpose' has been found. Neighbors yelling at one another was found as not serving a legitimate purpose by a judge and even the 'I want to alert others to how much this lawyer sucks' LLC in the other case. There is a infamous MKE attorney Alan Eisenberg which might have decisions on-point because part of his actions were 'correcting the record' type thing WRT speech having a legit purpose.
Patrick's "correcting the record" schick over and over to people not following him and blocked with the same claim of being a criminal sure seems like he's harassing others with the LLC/Esinerberg claiming such as a defense. If they have him blocked and he's using other means to read what they said and then responding sure seems like stalking on Patrick's part. Good thing his harassment is fine only for the 1st time. Is Patrick's pathology so far gone he'd keep up his BS after getting a fine for harassment and risk stronger penalties?
Doesn't change the neighbor rode the ride for just speech. And based on the one link (and the SCOWI judge all that happened was talk with a volume.
OFFTOPIC!
Found a NEW case mentioning harassment - Becker.
https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinions/11/pdf/11-2902.pdf The case facts in that link don't at all go to what is happening with Patrick
BUT Becker is interesting as he had a blow up in Milwaukee. In Milwaukee the UW staffer lied and the lie of the staffer got him charged criminally. Becker PRO SE beat criminal charges. Let that sink in.
A Pro Se beat criminal charges at trial. What is interesting is Becker later used 968.01(3) to try and get the UW staffer charged but got slow rolled 'till the statute of limitations ran.
Oh and from the Becker link "Vice Chancellor Bob Tomlinson" I expect the Pests to make a connection in 24-48 hours even if they just make it up whatever.
