Link (Archive)
The blogger now faces the prospect of jail after he was busted in June and accused of harassment for sending the image to Republican state Sen. Jerry Cirino. Central to the case is a lewd animation that local outlet Signal Ohio described as a “digitally altered version of Shrek, the ogre with a titular children’s movie franchise, with his penis exposed.”
D.J. Byrnes, who operates the progressive Substack blog about “all of Ohio’s depravity,”told The Columbus Dispatch this week he has rejected two plea deals that would allow him to escape a heated confrontation in municipal court. Under the deals, Byrnes would have been required to admit guilt in order to avoid time behind bars.
A jury is now scheduled to handle the case on Oct. 8.
To Cirino, the image sent on May 6 wasn’t just offensive — it was criminal. Two days later, he filed a formal complaint with the Kirtland, Ohio, police.
“Not only is the message harassing but the disgusting picture is pornographic in nature and not something I want to see on any of my devices,” Cirino wrote in the police complaint.
Cirino hasn’t spoken publicly about the case.
Byrnes said in a statement he was taken into custody by state troopers at a congressional hearing regarding “our Republican officials’ odious love affair with data centers.” He then spent 23 hours behind bars. Byrnes said he’s “innocent of the misdemeanor charge” and that he had no plans to speak publicly about the specifics of the case.
“The work of shining a light on the wretched and decaying underbelly of Ohio politics,” he said, “is too important to be sidetracked by this attempted interference.”
First Amendment advocates argue Byrnes was well within his legal rights. In order to find Byrnes guilty of telecommunications harassment — punishable by up to six months in jail — prosecutors must prove the text was sent with an intent to “harass, intimidate or abuse.”
“What does the First Amendment say?” the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonprofit free-speech group, asks in a blog post. “About Shrek’s schlong specifically? Nothing, surprisingly. But it does have a lot to say about speech criticizing government officials.”
The First Amendment prohibits the government from punishing people for what they say about — or to — public officials, the group notes, “even if some find the speech offensive, insulting or vulgar.”
Narrow First Amendment exceptions include true threats and obscenity. For content to be considered obscene under a test created by the Supreme Court in 1973, it must appeal to a morbid interest in sex in a way that is “patently offensive” and, taken as a whole, “lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
“There is no serious argument Byrnes sent it to arouse anyone’s sexual interest, let alone that it satisfies” the Supreme Court’s test, according to FIRE. “Byrnes sent it to another adult, reportedly accompanied by political commentary describing Cirino as ‘Young Mussolini.’ That’s protected political mockery, not obscenity.”
The First Amendment also doesn’t protect conduct that amounts to harassment. But the free-speech group argues the messages that Byrnes sent Cirino likely don’t reach that threshold. The text message, the group argues, wasn’t “a repeated, unwanted course of conduct aimed at invading someone’s privacy or disturbing their peace.”
Ahead of taking the case to court, Byrnes said on Instagram that people should prepare for public exposure.
“Get the popcorn ready,” he wrote.
A blogger sent a lawmaker a photo of Shrek’s penis. Now he faces 6 months in jail
The author of the Ohio-based political blog “The Rooster” said he plans to fight hard — and take his legal case all the way to trial — after he was put in handcuffs for texting a state senator a picture of Shrek’s penis.The blogger now faces the prospect of jail after he was busted in June and accused of harassment for sending the image to Republican state Sen. Jerry Cirino. Central to the case is a lewd animation that local outlet Signal Ohio described as a “digitally altered version of Shrek, the ogre with a titular children’s movie franchise, with his penis exposed.”
D.J. Byrnes, who operates the progressive Substack blog about “all of Ohio’s depravity,”told The Columbus Dispatch this week he has rejected two plea deals that would allow him to escape a heated confrontation in municipal court. Under the deals, Byrnes would have been required to admit guilt in order to avoid time behind bars.
A jury is now scheduled to handle the case on Oct. 8.
About that image…
Byrnes was arrested at the Ohio statehouse on June 1 after Cirino reported to police that he had received a photo of a “fully nude” ogre “with an exposed and erect humanlike penis engaged in an act of masturbation.” Byrnes had also called Cirino “Young Mussolini,” referring to the fascist Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.To Cirino, the image sent on May 6 wasn’t just offensive — it was criminal. Two days later, he filed a formal complaint with the Kirtland, Ohio, police.
“Not only is the message harassing but the disgusting picture is pornographic in nature and not something I want to see on any of my devices,” Cirino wrote in the police complaint.
Cirino hasn’t spoken publicly about the case.
Byrnes said in a statement he was taken into custody by state troopers at a congressional hearing regarding “our Republican officials’ odious love affair with data centers.” He then spent 23 hours behind bars. Byrnes said he’s “innocent of the misdemeanor charge” and that he had no plans to speak publicly about the specifics of the case.
“The work of shining a light on the wretched and decaying underbelly of Ohio politics,” he said, “is too important to be sidetracked by this attempted interference.”
Did Byrnes break the law?
The awkward situation is about more than a stiff legal challenge between a brash blogger and a politician — it also raises free speech questions.First Amendment advocates argue Byrnes was well within his legal rights. In order to find Byrnes guilty of telecommunications harassment — punishable by up to six months in jail — prosecutors must prove the text was sent with an intent to “harass, intimidate or abuse.”
“What does the First Amendment say?” the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonprofit free-speech group, asks in a blog post. “About Shrek’s schlong specifically? Nothing, surprisingly. But it does have a lot to say about speech criticizing government officials.”
The First Amendment prohibits the government from punishing people for what they say about — or to — public officials, the group notes, “even if some find the speech offensive, insulting or vulgar.”
Narrow First Amendment exceptions include true threats and obscenity. For content to be considered obscene under a test created by the Supreme Court in 1973, it must appeal to a morbid interest in sex in a way that is “patently offensive” and, taken as a whole, “lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
“There is no serious argument Byrnes sent it to arouse anyone’s sexual interest, let alone that it satisfies” the Supreme Court’s test, according to FIRE. “Byrnes sent it to another adult, reportedly accompanied by political commentary describing Cirino as ‘Young Mussolini.’ That’s protected political mockery, not obscenity.”
The First Amendment also doesn’t protect conduct that amounts to harassment. But the free-speech group argues the messages that Byrnes sent Cirino likely don’t reach that threshold. The text message, the group argues, wasn’t “a repeated, unwanted course of conduct aimed at invading someone’s privacy or disturbing their peace.”
Ahead of taking the case to court, Byrnes said on Instagram that people should prepare for public exposure.
“Get the popcorn ready,” he wrote.
