Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

178 Ohio App. 3d 734

State v. Ellison

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 10, 2008

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 2008-10-10

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Lowe v. Hamilton County Department of Job & Family Services (2010), Crenshaw v. Howard (2022)

2 federal appellate · 45 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2008-10-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Painter, Judge,

¶1 concurring.

¶2 {¶ 19} It is a scary thought that someone could go to jail for posting a comment on the Internet. If so, we could not build jails fast enough.

¶3 {¶ 20} The statute on telecommunications harassment is the successor to the former telephone-harassment law. It is designed to prohibit harassing or threatening calls. Of course the calls may now be made over a traditional phone line, a cellular phone, or the Internet. But posting an annoying — but nonthreatening — comment on a website is not a crime under this statute. It might well be a civil wrong, but it is not jailable. The First Amendment would not allow *739 punishment for making a nonthreatening comment on the Internet, just as it would not for writing a newspaper article, posting a sign, or speaking on the radio.

/178/ohioapp3d/734 · .json · Public domain