Ehlers v. Thomas

Citations

• 247 N.E.3d 586
• 2024 Ohio 2531

Syllabus

The magistrate's CSPO which ordered appellants to delete and not post any internet content which referenced appellee, a county coroner staff member, by name and prohibited appellants from possessing any firearms violated the First and Second Amendments. A blanket prohibition on using an individual's name on internet posts is a content-based restriction and is not the least restrictive means to protect a legitimate government interest because it prohibits use of appellee's name in all contexts. There is no compelling state interest in providing a public official with such anonymity. In addition, the weapon restriction lacked a sufficient nexus with the conduct the trial court was attempting to prevent because there was no evidence that Appellants used or threatened the use of a firearm against appellee or that they even owned a firearm.