Davis v. Colerain Township, 551 F.Supp.3d 812

Plaintiff Carrie Davis, a Colerain Township resident who engages in local political discourse, posted criticism of township officials and attended trustee meetings.
Colerain Police Department operates a public Facebook page (3 administrators) with terms (pre-March 2021) reserving the right to remove "inappropriate/offensive/hateful" content and prohibiting followers from posting videos.
Davis spoke at an April 9, 2019 trustee meeting; Chief Denney later posted on Facebook correcting a citizen’s comment about officers’ college degrees.
Davis says she posted a short video clip of her remarks to correct context; an administrator deleted the video (Chief Denney testified video posts by followers were not permitted).
The Board’s Rules of Public Participation (amended 2020) prohibit "profane, disrespectful, or threatening" language and authorize removal of disruptive speakers; Davis alleges chilling and past removals.
Procedural posture: cross-motions for summary judgment; the court denied Davis’s motion and granted Colerain’s motion, dismissing First Amendment, overbreadth, and vagueness challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Deletion of Davis's Facebook video	Deletion was viewpoint-based censorship of her corrective clip	Video posts were categorically disallowed for followers; deletion was neutral enforcement of that rule	Court: deletion was viewpoint-neutral and reasonable; other critical comments remained, Davis was not blocked; D's MSJ granted
Facebook content-terms ("inappropriate/offensive/hateful/racism")	Terms are viewpoint-discriminatory, overbroad, and vague, chilling speech	Terms are reasonable, narrowly applied, admins consult counsel before removal, not facially invalid	Court: terms are viewpoint-neutral and reasonable; facial overbreadth and vagueness claims fail
Board public participation rule prohibiting "disrespectful" speech	Rule censors critical or unpopular comments (viewpoint discrimination), citing tensions with Ison	Rule is viewpoint-neutral time/place/manner to ensure orderly meetings; allows critical comments so long as non-disruptive	Court: rule is viewpoint-neutral and reasonable to further orderly meetings; does not violate First Amendment
Overbreadth and vagueness attacks on both regimes	Phrases like "disrespectful" and "offensive" lack objective standards and invite arbitrary enforcement	No realistic danger of sweeping unconstitutional applications; discretion is limited and unavoidable in meetings	Court: plaintiff failed to show substantial overbreadth or unconstitutional vagueness; challenges rejected

Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (distinguishes permissible forum-content limits from impermissible viewpoint discrimination)
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (forum analysis for free speech claims)
Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998) (limited public forum doctrine)
McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) (time, place, manner constraints on speech)
Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (government may not censor speech as merely offensive)
Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019) (again recognizing limits on government restriction of offensive speech)
Youkhanna v. City of Sterling Heights, 934 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2019) (rules against "attacks on people or institutions" may be construed as viewpoint discrimination)
Ison v. Madison Local School Board, 395 F. Supp. 3d 923 (S.D. Ohio 2019) (district court decision evaluating restrictions on abusive/antagonistic speech at meetings)
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) (protection for provocative/offensive political expression)
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (vagueness doctrine: notice and standards required)