A Curious Twist in George v. George

Press ReleaseFor Immediate ReleaseDate: August 21, 2025 Briefing Complete in George v. George: Court to Rule on Landmark Free Speech Case Within 60 DaysCambridge, OH – Briefing is now complete in Jonathan George v. Maegin Lee George (Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 25-CV-00167). Judge Daniel G. Padden is expected to issue a ruling within 60 days of August 21, 2025. The case raises fundamental questions about free speech, Ohio’s anti-SLAPP protections, and the extent to which citizens and the press can be shielded from retaliatory litigation. Background of the Case The lawsuit was brought by Jonathan George, alleging defamation and related torts against Maegin George, his former spouse. Ms. George has emphatically denied the allegations and sought protection under Ohio’s recently enacted Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), designed to dismiss lawsuits aimed at silencing individuals for exercising their constitutional rights. The Plaintiff opposes that application, contending that knowingly false statements are not protected speech. Ms. George maintains that her statements are constitutionally protected participation in matters of public concern and that the lawsuit is a retaliatory effort designed to silence her. The Core Legal Question The case has taken on outsized importance due to a subtle but profound difference between Ohio’s version of UPEPA and the widely adopted model law.

• The model UPEPA applies if a lawsuit arises from a person’s exercise of the right of free speech or the press, or assembly/petition, or association.

• By contrast, Ohio’s statute (R.C. 2747.01(B)(3)) requires a lawsuit to arise from the exercise of free speech and the press, and assembly/petition, and association — a far narrower standard.

This single word –

“AND” instead of “OR”

– could radically shrink the scope of Ohio’s anti-SLAPP protections. Legislative history (attached to Meagin Geroge’s Reply briefing (attached)) indicates the Ohio Legislature intended to pass the model UPEPA, but, somehow, the word AND, was substituted in place of the word OR. Counsel for Jonathan George has latched onto the small difference in an attempt to state that the statute only protects those who use all of their First Amendment Rights at the same time. Such an interpretation directly contradicts the statute’s stated purpose of protecting the First Amendment rights of all Ohioans. (R.C. 2747.06).

Statement from Counsel

“This case is about more than the claims made against my client,” said

Austin Warehime, counsel for Defendant Maegin George

. “It is about whether Ohio courts will recognize the importance of protecting individuals from lawsuits designed to silence them. The Ohio legislature’s oversight and use of the word

‘AND’

instead of

‘OR’

in its UPEPA statute has created an ambiguity with enormous consequences. If the Court rules that ‘AND’ must be applied literally, Ohio’s anti-SLAPP protections could be gutted — leaving survivors, whistleblowers, and everyday Ohioans exposed to costly, retaliatory litigation simply for speaking out.” Warehime continued: “We believe the law must be interpreted in a way that reflects its constitutional purpose: safeguarding speech, not strangling it. Our client has a right to defend herself, to speak her truth, and to resist being silenced through intimidation. That is what this case is about.”

From the Client’s Perspective

For Ms. George, the stakes are deeply personal: “Maegin has been accused of saying things either she did not say or that are true and is now forced to defend herself against claims she has always denied. This lawsuit is not only an attack on her character but an attempt to weaponize the courts to silence her,” said Warehime. “She is standing up not just for herself but for the principle that citizens must be free to speak without fear of retaliation. That courage deserves protection under Ohio law.”

What’s at Stake for Ohio

If the Court sides with the Plaintiff on the statutory interpretation question, Ohio would become an outlier among states that have passed the Uniform Law Commission's UPEPA. Survivors, journalists, advocates, and ordinary citizens could be stripped of protections against lawsuits designed to chill speech. “This is a defining moment,” added Warehime. “The Court has the opportunity to clarify that Ohio’s law is meant to shield, not punish, those who exercise their constitutional rights. The decision in this case will resonate far beyond Guernsey County. It will set a precedent for how Ohio treats free speech and public participation moving forward.”

Next Steps

The Court’s decision is expected no later than

October 20, 2025

. Until then, Ms. George and her counsel remain confident that the strength of the arguments presented will carry the day — not just for one defendant, but for the protection of speech in Ohio.

Media Contact:

Austin Warehime Counsel for Defendant EQUES Law Group