A white woman unleashed a virulent rant on social media, accusing a Cincinnati police officer of “white supremacy.” Unfortunately for her, the officer wasn’t about to let the accusation go, prompting him to file a major lawsuit against her.
A simple perusal of the social media accounts belonging to Julie Neisen clears up any question about her political and social beliefs. A staunch advocate for Planned Parenthood, third-wave feminism, and abolishing our current law enforcement system, it was no surprise when she began targeting the Cincinnati Police Department with accusations of systemic racism.
Along with several others, Neisen accused the officer of being a white supremacist after viewing a video of him allegedly holding up the “OK” hand gesture at a City Council meeting addressing racial equity. She then shared the officer’s Facebook profile, pointing to his cover photo that featured LeBron James flashing the same “OK” symbol, insinuating that it was evidence of his apparent bigotry.
“On his Facebook page, which per Cincinnati Police policy should not ‘negatively impact the image of the Department’, he shares memes that advocate violence against protestors, memes that have been tagged as false by Facebook, and has posted the OK symbol as his cover image,” Neisen wrote.
Neisen went on to reveal that the cop was previously connected to an officer-involved shooting, suggesting that the incident was further confirmation of his adherence to “white supremacy.” Of course, she failed to mention that the suspect was armed and had pointed a gun at the officers before he was shot.
While many of her followers joined in the condemnation and called for the city to fire the officer, some pointed out the danger of accusing a law enforcement official of such a serious transgression without solid evidence. Others explained that the origin of the “OK” hand sign’s evolution into a “white power” symbol was merely a hoax launched by 4chan and 8chan users to convince progressives that the gesture was a white supremacist sign. Incredibly, their plan worked, as even politicians and media figures adopted the conspiracy.
“There should be ZERO tolerance of white supremacy in the Cincinnati Police Department. I don’t care if it’s a ‘joke’. That is nothing to joke about,” she defended.
Although Neisen has relentlessly defended her decision to target the officer with accusations of racism, she may have picked a costly battle. According to WKRC, the officer in question decided to sue Neisen and her comrades for defamation, claiming that some of them commented that they know the officer’s home address. The lawsuit states that the accusations could lead to doxing and subsequent harassment or violence against the officer. As such, Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Megan Shanahan sealed the officer’s records and replaced his real name with a pseudonym.
“The Defendants in this case thought they could threaten and attack this police officer without consequences. They were wrong,” the officer’s lawyers said in a statement. “Judge Shanahan made the right decision to protect this officer and his family and preserve their privacy. Her ruling will prohibit the dissemination of the officer’s personal identifying information.”
Neisen decided to fight the lawsuit by claiming that it threatens her First Amendment rights and that it’s a form of “bullying and intimidation.” The judge acknowledged that Neisen and the other individuals will not be prohibited from expressing their opinions about the officer.
“No one wants to put an officer in jeopardy. They have a dangerous job,” said Erik Laursen, a lawyer representing one of the online posters. “But we also have to remember that in America, we have this First Amendment – we have the right to speak out. And if it’s not obvious that a lot of people are concerned about police practices here in Cincinnati and nationwide then I think we’re missing something.”
Although the local police union did not get involved in the case, Cincinnati’s division of the Fraternal Order of Police president Dan Hils encouraged officers to pursue such legal action if they feel defamed.
“We certainly are not at war,” Hils said. “We are doing everything we can to serve the community. But there are people who are at war with us. And we do need to defend ourselves in the legal by the legal means afforded to everybody else.”
The case provides an interesting perspective on our First Amendment rights and the line between it and defamation. On one hand, police officers have a right to be free of slander and libel just like the rest of us. On the other hand, citizens have the inalienable right to speak freely, even if others disagree with their opinions.
Source: Tap Worthy Happenings
0 Comments