2019 Ohio 2106
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Petitioner David Coleman, a professional speaker and relationship consultant, alleged respondent Tina Razete engaged in a multi-platform campaign of online posts and public demonstrations accusing him of fraud, theft, tax fraud, and other wrongdoing after their marital breakup.
- Razete created a website (Fraudalert.com), posted on social media, emailed organizations that employ or honor Coleman, and staged a demonstrative RV display at a national conference displaying signs and props disparaging him.
- Coleman testified the conduct caused significant mental distress—depression, insomnia, appetite loss, suicidal ideation—and sought psychiatric treatment; Coleman’s agent and friend testified the conduct harmed his bookable business and mood.
- The trial magistrate granted a five-year civil stalking protection order (CSPO) under Ohio’s menacing-by-stalking statute, R.C. 2903.211/2903.214, requiring Razete to remove existing references to Coleman and forbidding any future comments about him.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s order. Razete appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence and (2) that the order’s speech restrictions—particularly the ban on any future comments—were overbroad and violated free-speech principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Coleman) | Defendant's Argument (Razete) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported issuance of a CSPO under R.C. 2903.211 | Razete’s repeated online posts, reports to agencies, and public demonstration constituted a pattern of conduct that knowingly caused mental distress requiring protection | Her statements were true and lawful speech; therefore a protection order was improper | Court: Sufficient evidence showed a pattern causing mental distress; CSPO valid (First assignment overruled) |
| Whether removal of existing online references was permissible relief | Necessary and narrowly tailored to stop the pattern causing harm | Removal restricts speech and associations | Court: Ordering removal of existing references was narrowly tailored and permissible |
| Whether forbidding any future comments about Coleman is constitutional | Necessary to prevent further harassment and distress | Blanket ban is an overbroad prior restraint on speech and not narrowly tailored | Court: Ban on any future comments is an impermissible prior restraint; that portion vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 972 N.E.2d 517 (2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in civil matters)
- State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Henry Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 125 Ohio St.3d 149, 926 N.E.2d 634 (2010) (prior restraints carry a heavy presumption against validity)
- New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (prior restraint doctrine; exceptional cases only)
- Kreuzer v. Kreuzer, 144 Ohio App.3d 610, 761 N.E.2d 77 (2001) (picketing to torment ex-spouse not protected speech in menacing-by-stalking context)
- State v. Smith, 126 Ohio App.3d 193, 709 N.E.2d 1245 (1998) (R.C. 2903.211 targets oppressive behavior invading privacy, not expression of beliefs)