Ohio Supreme Court: Cincinnati officer cannot sue critics anonymously
CINCINNATI OH Feb 19, 2022 A Hamilton County judge was wrong to allow a Cincinnati police officer to anonymously sue people who accused him of being racist, according to an Ohio Supreme Court ruling issued Thursday, according to our partners at the Enquirer.
The Enquirer and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh sued to have the case unsealed and Ryan Olthaus’ name on the records.
In a unanimous decision, the court barred Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Megan Shanahan from allowing the plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym. She must also release an unredacted affidavit in the case, the Enquirer reports.
In July 2020 Cincinnati police officer Ryan Olthaus sued several people who accused him of being racist after he used the “OK” hand gesture outside a heated City Council meeting.
Protests were happening across the country in the wake of the death of George Floyd, who was killed by police in Minneapolis. Dozens of people had come to city hall to call for police accountability and as part of the “defund police” movement.
After a disagreement between the protesters and a security guard, Olthaus came to the lobby of City Hall. During an exchange with a protester, Olthaus could be seen on video using the OK gesture, which he says was simply meant as an affirmative, per the Enquirer.
“Some people in the crowd interpreted the gesture as a white-supremacy hand signal,” the Supreme Court ruling states. “Several people made derogatory comments about him on social media, portraying him as a white supremacist.”
Terhas White filed a complaint against Olthaus with the city. She is among those he has sued. White told The Enquirer she confronted Olthaus in the moment and told him the gesture was racist.
“He just laughed it off. He tried to downplay it,” White said. “He said, ‘Is this better? Is this OK?’ And he throws two thumbs up.”
White took to social media to call Olthaus a “white supremacist kkkop,” according to Olthaus’ lawsuit.
The suit says Julie Niesen and several other defendants made social media posts that “portrayed” the officer as a white supremacist and the post “created a risk of harm” to the officer and his family. Some of the posts presented in the lawsuit show threats to “dox” or reveal personal information about Olthaus, according to the Enquirer.
Attorney Zach Gottesman, who represents Olthaus, said Cincinnati police intelligence found messages on social media in which people were talking about taking “actual concrete steps to harm (Olthaus) and his family.”
Judge Megan Shanahan allowed Olthaus’ affidavit to be sealed but later made most of it public and allowed for him to proceed in the case as M.R. instead of using his name.
Shanahan also barred Terhas, White and others from revealing any personally identifying information about Olthas.
The defendants have also appealed the restriction of their speech to the Ohio Supreme Court. The court has not yet ruled on that issue, the Enquirer reports.
The Supreme Court said the threat of “doxing” by itself does not constitute a true threat.
“A threat to publicize someone’s name, address, and phone numbers, though potentially ‘offensive and disagreeable,’ does not create an inherent risk of injury to that person,” the opinion said.
The justices noted that people can sue under a pseudonym in rare instances where retaliation is likely but said Olthaus’ case does not meet those standards. The threats against him presented to the Supreme Court were not severe enough to warrant the anonymous proceedings.
“A plaintiff seeking to proceed anonymously for fear of retaliation must show that the filing of the lawsuit causes a risk of retaliation,” the justices wrote. “M.R. did not establish that causal connection; he did not show that any risk of harm against him or his family would increase if he were required to prosecute his lawsuit using his name.”
While Thursday’s ruling was not in Olthaus’ favor, his defamation case against White, Niesen and others continues. His lawyer said his privacy was “tortiously violated” and that the defendants acted with “actual malice,” per the Enquirer.
Attorneys for the defendants have said calling a person racist is a matter of opinion, which has been established in prior court cases, and therefore they are protected by the First Amendment.
Olthaus’ lawyers did not respond to requests for comment at the time of this report.
Cincinnati Enquirer
