An explicit text, a guilty verdict, and a power dynamic we shouldn’t ignore.
Today I want to talk about the telecommunications harassment case involving Ohio state Senator Jerry Cirino and D.J. Byrnes , better known as The Rooster . I was at the trial on day one and watched the livestream on day two. The Rooster was found guilty and received a $200 fine plus court costs.
I’m not going to explain every detail here. I covered both days over at my other publication, The Angry Ohioan where I focus exclusively on Ohio news. You can read the two-day write-up here:
I think this case deserves a conversation in The Angry Democrat because it raises questions that go beyond Ohio. What text messages are acceptable to send to someone? Does the answer change when the recipient is a public official? Is this a freedom of speech and freedom of the press conversation, or is it harassment?
Before you read my take, keep three questions in mind:
Do you agree with the guilty verdict? Why or why not?
Would your answer change if the same image had been sent to a female elected official, whether the sender was a man or a woman?
Do you think this was a sitting state senator flexing his power against the media?
There is a lot of disagreement about this case. Some people are absolutely convinced this was protected speech. Others think it crossed the line. Here’s where I landed.
