🩴 Flip-flopping on the First Amendment

News analysis and opinion: Ashli Ford and her attorney, Peter Pattakos, hold tight when they talk, but cry foul when we do

This was written in response to a comment from a reader, Beverly, and for other readers who asked why an “advocate” was charged with extortion, intimidation, forgery and fraud, and why it’s newsworthy?

𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐁𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲:

Prosecutors say Ashli Ford exploits crime victims and accuses public officials and others of wrongdoing to draw attention to herself and to generate revenue at her social media pages.

She does present herself as an advocate promoting the welfare of children, as you suggest, but A.F. makes unsubstantiated allegations and later does nothing to follow through or help bring people to justice. She’s done this repeatedly. In the case of Amanda Dean’s homicide, she and her supporters have suggested that A.F. “brought Fred Reer to justice,” which by all available evidence is simply not true. It’s pretty brazen, too, considering A.F. was charged with attempting to extort a Dean family member. What kind of advocate gets charged with extortion.

At the time, when she was allegedly attempting to extort the Dean family, Peter Pattakos, who represented the Dean family in 2023 and Ford since last year, told Ford to stop making false allegations. Now P.P. is defending the behavior he condemned previously. It’s quite a 𝐅𝐥𝐢𝐩-𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐩.

Even Peter said so

In 2023, P.P. agreed with prosecutors about A.F. In a May 12, 2023 letter to A.F., P.P. told her she had “prioritized your own interest in attracting attention to yourself (listeners to your podcast, page views at social media) over the performance of any fair, truthful and effective advocacy on behalf of Amanda Dean’s family.”

A.F. is 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐦 at her social media (remember, according to prosecutors her goal is to get clicks) making her the only advocate in history who thinks it acceptable to post photos of child victims, or any victims. She never provided an explanation for why she’s doing that to a victim and a victim’s family, and she has not removed the photos from her pages. Like the Dean family, she is betraying the interests of that child. It’s great, Ms. Beverly, that you want to support people who advocate for children, but does that mean you support the notion that sharing photos of child rape victims to get clicks at social media is OK?

𝐓𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐀.𝐅. 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧

Given her behavior, and the many instances I know personally in which she’s provided what I and others perceive to be inaccurate information to the public at her social media, I believe prosecutors are likely correct in their assessment of A.F. The last investigation A.F. triggered by allegations she made at social media — unsubstantiated claims against the Huron city schools SRO — cost taxpayers an estimated tens of thousands of dollars and resulted in no witnesses, no complaint and no charges. A.F. refused to help police after initially telling them she “represented” one, two, or five students with complaints against the SRO (the number kept changing, according to a report of the investigation released Friday). It’s great that you want to support people who advocate for children, Ms. Beverly, but does that mean you support the notion it’s OK to make demonstrably false claims and fail to follow through? For clicks?

Prosecutors contend Ford exploits crime victims and levels false accusations against law enforcement to generate social media engagement and revenue. While she was indicted on nine counts of extortion, a judge acquitted her of those specific charges in May 2025. However, the court did find her guilty of four felony counts of intimidation for her role in a high-pressure social media campaign aimed at stopping her own prosecution.

A.F., through her attorney, P.P., is appealing her convictions arguing that it is A.F.’s First Amendment right to threaten public officials with whom she disagrees. We have asked A.F. and P.P. about the appeal, and asked if they also are contending that demonstrably false accusations are protected free speech. They have declined to answer and have suggested that our making inquiries about their free speech rights argument is somehow, ironically, a form of harassment (so much for free speech rights). It seems readily apparent, to us anyway, that A.F. hopes to weaponize her harassment complaint and build hostility toward us among her supporters. In the past, A.F. has encouraged people to call our bosses and try to get us fired, to call our advertisers and complain. She has planted seeds along the way to weaponize her hostility and encourage her misguided supporters to insult us, degrade our efforts and make false, malicious and heinous claims about us to discourage legitimate and competent news coverage. We must not let them, and this battle — the whole stinky bunch of crap — it’s all newsworthy.

Be our guests, at 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐲𝐓𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐝𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐤𝐲

We asked A.F. and P.P to be our guests on 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐲𝐓𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐝𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐤𝐲’𝐬 public affairs talk program to provide a broader context concerning A.F.’s claim that threatening public officials with whom she disagrees is her First Amendment right, and also ask whether they are contending that demonstrably false accusations are protected speech. If she wins the appeal of her convictions based on those arguments it will break new ground weaponizing free speech.

I guess that’s all for now, but please feel free to call me at 419-357-5051 if you want to talk more about this, or email me here at matt@staytunedsandusky.com, or comment here...

— 𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐓 𝐖𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐇𝐎𝐋𝐃

Editor’s note: This column represents the writer’s news analysis and opinion.