This comment, by “rea” seems especially useful:

“The essence of the Circuit’s decision is that the conduct that Tobin engaged in in this case does not fall within the meaning of harassment as that word is used in the statute.”
No.
What the Court said was (a) there was an error in instructing the jury, requiring a retrial, (b) there was sufficicent evidence to convict Tobin if what the statute requires is an intent to harrass, rather than a purpose to harrass, and (c) there is an open question, which the appellate court did not resolve for procedural reasons, about whether the statute requires a purpose rather than an intent.