The battle over just how far a podcaster can go isn’t just about how Ashli Ford conducted herself — it’s about how we define “threats” in 2026. Here are the most critical arguments from the defense (attorney Peter Pattakos) and the prosecution (Erie County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter and assistant prosecutor Kristin Palmer).
The defense: ‘Political hyperbole’
The Argument: Ford’s words were a metaphor for political change, protected by the First Amendment.
On the Malcolm X Quote: “The reference to Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. is a classic reference to a choice between two well-known philosophies of social and political change... one non-violent and the other ‘by any means necessary.’”
On “Demise”: “In the context of a political dispute, ‘demise’ refers to the end of a political career or a loss of power—not a physical death. To hold otherwise is to criminalize metaphor.”
The First Amendment Shield: “Speech is often vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp... but it remains protected unless it is a ‘true threat’ intended to impart a fear of physical harm.”
The prosecution: ‘Witness intimidation’
The Argument: Ford’s words were a targeted strike against people testifying against her in court.
On the Timing: “The victims were not just ‘office holders’; they were active witnesses in a pending criminal case against the Defendant. This was not a protest; it was an attempt to influence testimony.”
On the Choice of Icons: “To reference the ‘demise’ of public officials in the same breath as two of the most famous assassinated leaders in American history is to impart a clear and present threat of physical violence.”
The Procedural ‘Waiver’: “The Defendant failed to sufficiently raise these constitutional arguments at trial. She cannot now, on appeal, claim a ‘Free Speech’ protection that she effectively waived in the courtroom.”
Sixth Amendment ‘ineffective counsel’ claim
Because the State argues Ford “waived” her rights by not bringing them up sooner, her new team is forced to make a bold claim:
“If trial counsel failed to raise a First Amendment defense to a conviction based entirely on speech, that failure constitutes Ineffective Assistance of Counsel... warranting that the convictions be reversed.”
📰 Read more
Paid subscribers get 100% access to all our archives plus free open records assistance from our help line (419-357-5051). News coverage of Ashli Ford’s criminal cases is the most comprehensive news account of the podcaster’s claims.
/30
You missed the critical legal test for determining whether a statement is in fact a true threat that takes it outside the protection of the First Amendment.
First, the statement must be such that a reasonable person would find it to be a serious expression to cause physical harm to another. Second, there must be evidence that the defendant subjectively intended it to be a true threat.
The fact that the facebook post was published to 100,000's of readers and that nobody considered it to be a serious threat of physical harm by reporting it other than the 4 men who only reported it 6 months later demonstrates the statement is not a true threat.
Also the trial court was required by SCOTUS and Ohio Supreme Court precedent to authoratatively construe the statute and apply the law to the facts (statement in context) to demonstrate her reasoning in arriving at a guilty verdict.
Matt - don’t you know that she’s against child molesters?? And that she’s favored by God? Just look at the blessed life she has. How dare you hold her to the law?