Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 1 of 21 PAGEID #: 44

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

CAMERON PADGETT, Case No. 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ

Plaintiff, Hon. Algenon L. Marbley

v. Mag. Kimberly A. Jolson

MICHAEL V. DRAKE,
In his personal and official capacities as
president of The Ohio State University,

and

WHITNEY RULE,
In her personal and official capacities as an
agent of The Ohio State University,

Defendants.

BRISTOW LAW, PLLC CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND, LLP

By: Kyle Bristow (#0089543) Michael Hiram Carpenter (#0015733)
P.O. Box 381164 280 Plaza, Ste. 1300
Clinton Twp., MI 48038 280 North High St.
(P): (248) 838-9934 Columbus, OH 43215
(E): BristowLaw@gmail.com (P): (614) 365-4100
Attorneys for Cameron Padgett (E): carpenter@carpenterlipps.com
Attorneys for Michael V. Drake and Whitney Rule

PLAINTIFF CAMERON PADGETTS FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT

(JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON)

NOW COMES Cameron Padgett (Plaintiff), by and through Attorney Kyle Bristow, and

hereby propounds upon Michael V. Drake (Drake) and Whitney Rule (Rule) (Drake and Rule

collectively Defendants) and this Honorable Courtpursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15Plaintiff

Cameron Padgetts First Amended Verified Complaint:

Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 2 of 21 PAGEID #: 45

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff sues Defendantsby invoking 42 U.S.C. 1983for Defendants having

wantonly violated Plaintiffs right to free speechas guaranteed to Plaintiff by the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitutionby prohibiting Plaintiff from hosting

Richard Spencer (Spencer) of the National Policy Institute (NPI) as a speakerin addition to

other speakers, including Plaintiffon the campus of The Ohio State University (OSU) to share

with attendees of said event their Alt-Right and identitarian political philosophies.

II. PARTIES

2. Plaintiff is an adult natural person, a citizen by birth of the United States of America, and

a domiciliary of the State of Georgia.

3. Drake is an adult natural person who is the president of OSU and is ultimately responsible

for all policies enacted and enforced at OSUincluding the deprivation of Plaintiffs

constitutional rights challenged herein. Drake is sued in his personal and official capacities as an

agent of OSU. At all times relevant to the instant controversy, Drake acted under the color of state

law.

4. Rule is an adult natural person who is the event planning coordinator of the Ohio Union at

OSU and is sued in her personal and official capacities as an agent of OSU. At all times relevant

to the instant controversy, Rule acted under the color of state law.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court enjoys subject matter jurisdiction over the instant civil action because the

controversy involves a federal question about Plaintiffs constitutional right to free speech being

violated by Defendants. 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343, 2201; 42 U.S.C. 1983.

2
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 3 of 21 PAGEID #: 46

6. This Court enjoys personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants are subject to

the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction within the State of Ohio since Defendants are

located in the State of Ohio and Defendants did and caused tortious injury to Plaintiff in the State

of Ohio. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A); R.C. 2307.382(A)(3); R.C. 2307.385.

7. Venue is appropriate with this Court because a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in the Courts jurisdictional district. 28 U.S.C.

1391(b)(2).

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. Plaintiff is student at Georgia State University who subscribes to identitarian philosophy.

At all times relevant to the instant controversy, Plaintiff does not engage in or advocate criminal

conduct.

9. Identitarian philosophy is a Eurocentric political ideology which advocates the

preservation of national identity and a return to traditional Western values.

10. Plaintiff is a supporter of Spencer and Plaintiff has organized a number of events at college

campuses at which Spencer and other identitarian and Alt-Right political activistsinvited by

Plaintiffspeak as guests.

11. Alt-Rightan abbreviation of alternative right, is a Eurocentric political ideology which

advocates the preservation of national identity, a return to traditional Western values, and advances

European racial interests. Race-based preferential treatment for non-Europeans (a/k/a affirmative

action), non-European immigration to European countries and their former colonies, international

free trade agreements, radical feminism, sexual deviancy, and the ideology of multiculturalism are

strongly criticized by adherents of Alt-Right philosophy.

3
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 4 of 21 PAGEID #: 47

12. Spencer is arguably the foremost advocate for Alt-Right philosophy in the world and is

rapidly becoming a major figure in contemporary American politics. Spencer graduated from the

University of Virginia with a Bachelor of Arts degree, the University of Chicago with a Master of

Arts degree, and pursued a Ph.D. in modern European intellectual history at Duke University. At

all times relevant to the instant controversy, Spencer does not engage in or advocate criminal

conduct.

13. NPI is a think-tank based in City of Alexandria, Commonwealth of Virginia, for which

Spencer serves as its figurehead. NPI promotes Alt-Right philosophy through its publications and

private and public events. At all times relevant to the instant controversy, NPI does not advocate

criminal conduct.

14. Due to the political viewpoint of Plaintiff, Spencer, and NPI, people who are politically

left-of-center find Plaintiffs, Spencers, and NPIs constitutionally-protected political views to be

objectionable. Activists affiliated with the Antifa political movement have previously violently

attacked Spencer and Spencers supporters at venues at which Spencer and Spencers supporters

peacefully assembled with the explicit goal of shutting down Spencers events.

15. Antifaan abbreviation of antifascistis an unincorporated and international

organization of radically left-wing activists who resort to violence as a matter of practice to try to

oppress people of a right-of-center or identitarian political persuasion. Usually clothed in black

and wearing masks to conceal their identities, Antifa activists routinely show up to politically right-

of-center and identitarian events with baseball bats, knives, sticks, pepper spray, and other

weapons to attack their political opponents. Antifa activists often throw water balloons filled with

urine and other harmful objects at politically right-of-center and identitarian people without lawful

justification.

4
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 5 of 21 PAGEID #: 48

16. OSU is a public university principally located in City of Columbus, Franklin County, State

of Ohio. OSU is organized under the laws of the State of Ohio pursuant to R.C. 3335.01, et

seq.

17. Drake, as the president of OSU, isupon information and beliefthe highest-ranking

authority figure who makes decisions for OSU.

18. OSU maintains a website at <http://planevents.osu.edu> at which numerous venues on

OSUs campus are advertised as being publicly available for rent. Says the introductory paragraph

of said website:

Discover unique and flexible venues at The Ohio State University! Ohio States
convenient locations and diverse offerings make it the ideal place for your next
meeting, conference, banquet, wedding, or social event. Let our facilities help
create successful events that will inspire and energize your attendees. We have
venues on campus to serve the needs of any size of gathering: from a trade show,
convention with overnight rooms, conference or corporate retreat to an outdoor
wedding or an intimate private event. And to make planning the perfect event even
easier, our professional event planners are dedicated to helping you each step of the
way.

19. Upon information and belief, in or about August of 2017, a man using the name of Gregory

Ritter contacted OSU in attempt to rent a room on campus at which Spencer would speak.

20. On September 1, 2017, an electronic mail was sent to <gregoryritter39@gmail.com> from

<planevents@osu.edu>:

Mr. Ritter,

We are writing in response to the National Policy Institutes request to rent space
in the coming weeks at The Ohio State University. After thoroughly assessing
space options and resources and after consulting with law enforcement officials,
the university determined that it is not possible to accommodate this request without
substantial risk to public safety. Because of the substantial risk and our
commitment to the safety of our campus community, the university is denying this
request to rent space.

/s/ The Ohio State University

5
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 6 of 21 PAGEID #: 49

21. Subsequent to the September 1, 2017, electronic mail sent to

<gregoryritter39@gmail.com>, Plaintiff called by phone representatives of OSU in attempt to rent

a publicly available room on campus at which Plaintiff, Spencer, and other invited speakers would

have shared with attendees their Alt-Right and identitarian philosophies. Plaintiff wasand is

stillprepared to pay for the rental of the room.

22. On September 12, 2017, Plaintiff received an electronic mail from

<oustudentmanager@gmail.com> to confirm one of Plaintiffs phone conversations concerning

renting a room on OSUs campus:

11/8 Performance Hall. 7-9pm. Up to 500 people.

/s/
Student Manager
Ohio Union Event Services
The Ohio State University
1739 N High Street Rm 2008
614-292-5200

23. On September 13, 2017, Plaintiff sent an electronic mail to Diana Gerberthe

coordinator of planning and scheduling per the OSU Office of the President webpage, at

<gerber.134@osu.edu> after Plaintiff felt that OSUs agents began to obstruct Plaintiffs ability

to rent a room on OSUs campus:

Hello,

My name is Cameron Padgett. A friend of mine tried to reserve space in one of the
Universities rooms for a speaker by the name of Richard Spencer. The event was
denied due to safety concerns so I decided to try again based on the time that has
went by hoping those safety concerns may have been resolved. I filled out a request
online and sent an email to event planning. I also spoke with a young man at the
union and he sent me an email saying there was space available in November. He
confirmed a date a time and said that the space was fully available. I have that
email documented. When I told him who the speaker would be he suddenly
changed his tone, put me on hold and said that the space may not be available after
all. The 48hr time frame that your website specifies that it will get back to

6
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 7 of 21 PAGEID #: 50

applicants has expired and still I have heard nothing. I would really appreciate if
someone got back to me and let me know what is going on.

Thanks, Cameron Padgett

24. In September of 2017, Plaintiff spoke by phone with Rule about renting a room at the Ohio

Union at OSU.

25. On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff sent an electronic mail to <sl-

ohiounionevents@osu.edu>:

Hey,

I spoke with Whitney in the OSU Union and she wanted me to specify a certain
date. November 15th (Wednesday) from 7-9pm would be a good date. If that date
is not available please let me know which date is available. We are pretty flexible.

Thanks, Cameron Padgett.

26. On September 26, 2017, Plaintiff received an electronic mail from <sl-

ohiounionevents@osu.edu>:

Mr. Padgett,

Thank you for confirming the information you would like to be considered for a
space rental. Please note that the email you previously referenced from an Ohio
Union student staff member and this email are intended to document your request,
and do not constitute a confirmation or a space reservation for your requested time
and date.

We will review your request and be in touch. If you have questions in the interim,
please feel free to respond to this email or contact the Ohio Union reservation
specialist, Whitney Rule.

Thank you,

Ohio Union Events

27. On October 8, 2017, by and through the undersigned attorney, Plaintiff sent an electronic

mail to <sl-ohiounionevents@osu.edu> in which Plaintiff demanded a response as to whether or

not Plaintiff would in fact be permitted to rent a publicly available room on campus at which

7
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 8 of 21 PAGEID #: 51

Plaintiff, Spencer, and other invited speakers would have shared with attendees their Alt-Right and

identitarian philosophies.

28. On October 13, 2017, Defendants, by and through Attorney Christopher Culleywho is

OSUs senior vice president and general counsel, sent an electronic mail to Plaintiffs attorney

wherein Defendants stated:

Mr. Bristow,

I am writing in response to your October 8, 2017 letter. On September 25, 2017,

your client, Cameron Padgett, submitted a request to rent the Ohio Union
Performance Hall on November 15, 2017, from 7:00 9:00 PM.

The university has reviewed this request and has determined that this request cannot
be accommodated without substantial risk to public safety. However, the university
is currently considering other alternatives for Mr. Padgetts request and expects to
be in touch by the end of next week regarding whether there may be viable
alternatives for Mr. Padgetts consideration.

Sincerely,
/s/
Christopher Culley
Senior Vice President & General Counsel

29. On October 15, 2017, Plaintiff sent an electronic mail to <sl-ohiounionevents@osu.edu>

to inquire about the viable alternatives that may be available to him to rent a publicly available

room on OSUs campus:

Whitney,

My name is Cameron Padgett. You reached out to me via phone call close to two
weeks ago about renting space for a speaking event involving Richard Spencer.
You asked me specifically a date and time I was seeking to rent space and I verified
that through e-mail. I called you back and you told me that I would hear something
within 48hrs. One of your staffers already verified a date and time that was
available. I had to change that date like we talked about earlier. There were many
dates that were open that would work with us that an employee confirmed. I am
just concerned about not hearing anything back. Please let me know as soon as
possible. As I said before, I want to rent this space in my own capacity.

Thanks, Cameron

8
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 9 of 21 PAGEID #: 52

30. On October 17, 2017, by and through the undersigned attorney, Plaintiff sent an electronic

mail to the assistant of Christopher Culley at <querry.4@osu.edu> in which Plaintiff demanded

an unequivocal and unconditional assertion by Friday, October 20, 2017, at 5:00 p.m., that

Spencer will in fact be allowed to speak in a rented room on OSUs campus for a date and time to

be determined.

31. On October 20, 2017, Defendants, by and through Attorney Michael H. Carpenter, sent an

electronic mail to the undersigned attorney:

Dear Mr. Bristow:

Please be advised that our office has been retained to represent The Ohio State
University (the University) related to the issues raised in your recent
correspondence to Christopher Culley. In particular, Mr. Culley forwarded your
October 17, 2017 letter on to our office for response. * * *

The University values freedom of speech. Nonetheless, the University has

determined that it is not presently able to accommodate Mr. Padgetts request to
rent space at the University due to substantial risk to public safety, as well as
material and substantial disruption to the work and discipline of the University. In
reaching this determination, the University has considered the information
presently available, including, but not limited to, consultation with law
enforcement, and yesterdays events at the University of Florida.

Very truly yours,

/s/
Michael H. Carpenter

32. Defendants have in fact refused to permit Plaintiff to rent a publicly available room on

OSUs campus to exercise Plaintiffs right to free speech at which Plaintiff would host Alt-Right

and identitarian activists to speak about their political views.

33. Defendants decision to not agree to timely permit Plaintiff to rent a publicly available

room on OSUs campus due to violence implicitly or explicitly threatened by Antifa and not by

the speakers of said event constitutes unconstitutional content discrimination in the form of a

hecklers veto. See Bible Believers v. Wayne County, 805 F.3d 228 (6th Cir. 2015).

9
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 10 of 21 PAGEID #: 53

34. OSU has a history of permitting politically left-wing people and race-based organizations

advocating for racial interests other than the White race to speak on campus; to wit: Bobby Seale

the co-founder of the Black Panther Partyspoke at the 37th Annual United Black World

Celebration1; Angela Davisa former leader of Communist Party USA2; Elaine Browna

former Black Panther Party member3; Jesse Jackson4; Al Sharpton5; Barack Obama6; Cleve

Jonesa homosexual rights activist7; Ron Wilkinsan activist who advocates for Latinos and

Africans uniting as a political bloc8; Juan Gonzaleza pro-immigration activist9; Harry

Belafontea social justice activist10; and Dick Gregorya civil rights activist.11 Defendants

selectively choosing which viewpoints may be spoken on OSUs campus by permitting politically

left-of-center events to occur but prohibiting Plaintiffs Alt-Right and identitarian event is

inherently unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. See Perry Education Association v. Perry

Local Educators Association, 460 U.S. 37, 57-67 (1983) (providing an overview of how

viewpoint discrimination is impermissible at all government-owned forumspublic and non-

public forums alike).

1
https://www.thelantern.com/2007/02/seale-revisits-social-change/
2
https://www.thelantern.com/2017/01/hale-center-to-host-dr-angela-y-davis-for-45th-mlk-
celebration/; http://www.aim.org/aim-column/ohio-state-university-features-black-communist/;
https://www.thelantern.com/2010/02/davis-struggle-for-freedom-still-prevalent/
3
https://www.thelantern.com/2000/02/author-activist-to-give-keynote/
4
https://www.thelantern.com/2000/09/rev-jesse-jackson-urges-students-to-visit-ballot-box/
5
https://www.thelantern.com/2015/01/rev-al-sharpton-calls-on-students-to-continue-civil-rights-
struggle/
6
https://www.osu.edu/index.php?q=features/2013/obamacommencement.html
7
https://www.thelantern.com/2009/11/gay-rights-activist-portrayed-in-milk-to-speak-on-
campus-2/
8
https://www.thelantern.com/2000/02/activist-promotes-black-latino-link/
9
https://www.thelantern.com/2014/10/activist-juan-gonzalez-us-could-fix-its-immigration-
problem/
10
https://www.thelantern.com/2008/10/harry-belafonte-famed-singer-activist-speaks-against-
violence/
11
https://www.thelantern.com/2008/01/famed-activist-stirs-controversy/
10
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 11 of 21 PAGEID #: 54

35. Although Defendants apparently believe Plaintiffs and Spencers constitutionally-

protected political ideas and speech in support thereof to be inflammatory, neither Plaintiff nor

Spencer speak in a manner that is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and

is likely to incite or produce such action. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

36. Defendants have no reason to believe that Plaintiff, Spencer, or anyone else who Plaintiff

would invite to speak at Plaintiffs planned event will in fact engage in and/or advocate offensive

criminal misconduct at it.

37. Upon information and belief, Defendants find Alt-Right philosophy to be objectionable

and are discriminating against Plaintiff therefor.

38. It is undeniably offensive to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution for Defendants to prohibit Plaintiff from renting a publicly available room on OSUs

campus at which Plaintiff would host Spencer as a speaker due to violence threatened by the left-

wing adversaries of Plaintiff and Spencer.

39. Plaintiff is neither an employee nor agent of Spencer or NPI. When Plaintiff contacts

possible venues to inquire about renting publicly available rooms for Plaintiffs planned events to

promote Alt-Right and identitarian philosophy, Plaintiff does so in Plaintiffs personal capacity.

When Plaintiff corresponded with Rule, Plaintiff made it unequivocally clear that Plaintiff was

attempting to rent a room in Plaintiffs personal capacity and not on behalf of Spencer or NPI.

Had OSU provided Plaintiff a contract for the requested room rental, Plaintiff fully intended to

enter into it in Plaintiffs personal capacity. Had OSU charged Plaintiff a fee for the rental of the

room for Plaintiffs planned event, Plaintiff would have paid for it with Plaintiffs personal

finances. Defendants refused Plaintiff the opportunity to exercise Plaintiffs own right to free

speech by prohibiting Plaintiff from renting the room for the purpose intended by Plaintiff.

11
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 12 of 21 PAGEID #: 55

40. The instant controversy is virtually identical to Padgett v. Auburn University, Case No.

3:17-cv-00231-WKW-WC, at the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

In said case, the same plaintiff as the one of the instant civil action sued a public university for

prohibiting Plaintiff from hosting Spencer as a speaker in a rented conference room or lecture hall

to talk about Alt-Right philosophy. The defendants in that case alleged that Spencers appearance

on the campus of the public university would cause lawless action. Chief Judge W. Keith Watkins

awarded Plaintiff a preliminary injunction so that Spencer could speak in a rented roomthe

defendants were court-ordered to not only protect Spencer and Spencers supporters from Antifa

via the universitys police department, but to de-mask Antifa protesters to dissuade violence,

Spencer peacefully spoke on campus without advocating criminal misconduct, and Plaintiff and

the defendants settled the controversy for twenty-nine-thousand-dollars ($29,000.00). (Exhibit A

Padgett v. Auburn University Opinion). Just like Auburn University, the OSU defendants of the

instant civil action must permit Plaintiff to rent a publicly available conference room or lecture

hall for Plaintiffs planned event on OSUs campus if the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution are to be respected.

41. To date, Plaintiff has arranged for Spencer to speak at Auburn University and the

University of Florida. At these events, Plaintiff and Alt-Right and identitarian activists invited by

Plaintiff to participate spoke about their Alt-Right and identitarian philosophies. For example, at

Auburn University, Spencer, Attorney Sam Dickson, and Michael Enoch Peinovich

(Peinovich) of The Right Stuff spoke, and at the University of Florida Peinovich, Elliott Eli

Mosley Kline of Identity Evropa, Spencer, and Plaintiff spoke.

42. Spencers December 2016 event at Texas A&M Universitywhich was organized by

someone other than Plaintiffcan be viewed on YouTube at

12
 Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 13 of 21 PAGEID #: 56

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlbLNWIFEY0>. Although there was some heckling at

times, the event otherwise proceeded without disruption.

43. Spencers April 2011 event at Providence Collegewhich was organized by someone

other than Plaintiffcan be viewed on YouTube at

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw2V42KS1zc>. Other than Antifa activists showing up

with a megaphone and briefly disrupting the event, the event otherwise proceeded without

disruption.

44. Plaintiffs April 2017 event at Auburn University can be viewed on YouTube at

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jgyT67fP6k>. Although there was some heckling at times,

the event otherwise proceeded without disruption.

45. Plaintiffs October 2017 event at the University of Florida can be viewed on YouTube at

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK_999sTgU>. The event was disrupted due to politically

left-of-center protesters repetitively chanting and yelling throughout the event and the police

officers at the event unconstitutionally refusing to maintain order so that the protesters could drown

out the speakers speeches.

46. Plaintiff is currently attempting to schedule an event similar to the proposed OSU event at

the University of Cincinnatiwhich has agreed to permit Plaintiff to schedule the event to occur

on their campus. The University of Cincinnati has even launched a website to inform the public

about Plaintiffs forthcoming event there, which is accessible at

<http://www.uc.edu/freespeech.html>.

47. Plaintiff is currently attempted to schedule an event similar to the proposed OSU event at

the University of Michiganwhich has agreed to work with Plaintiff to schedule Plaintiffs

proposed event on their campus. The University of Michigan has even launched a website to inform

13
 Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 14 of 21 PAGEID #: 57

the public about Plaintiffs forthcoming event there, which is accessible at

<http://publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/free-speech-and-speakers-on-campus/>

48. Plaintiff desires to host Plaintiffs proposed event at OSU so as to educate the students of

OSU and Ohioans in general about Alt-Right and identitarian philosophy. Plaintiff wants Plaintiff,

Spencer, and Plaintiffs other invited speakers to be able to safely and meaningfully share with

attendees of the event their political philosophiesand for people who are opposed to the

speakers ideas to have a meaningful opportunity to respectfully challenge the speakers during a

question and answer session following the speakers presentations. The best way by which

Plaintiff can share Plaintiffs philosophy with OSU students is by Plaintiff having Plaintiffs

proposed event on OSUs campus during the academic year.

49. Plaintiff is willing, able, and eager to consider reasonable suggestions made by Defendants

as to an alternative time, manner, and place for Plaintiffs planned event to occur on OSUs campus

instead of Plaintiffs original requested time, manner, and place, but Defendants have refused to

permit Plaintiffs proposed event to occur at any time, in and manner, and at any place on OSUs

campus.

50. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendants because

Defendants caused harm to Plaintiff that was malicious, oppressive, and/or in reckless disregard

of Plaintiffs rights.

51. Defendants do not enjoy qualified immunity for Defendants tortious conduct against

Plaintiff, because the right of a citizen of the United States of America to speak about controversial

political subject matter over the objection of people in opposition to the same who threaten to

disrupt it is clearly established constitutional law. See Bible Believers, supra; Smith v. Ross, 482

F.2d 33, 37 (6th Cir. 1973) ([S]tate officials are not entitled to rely on community hostility as an

14
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 15 of 21 PAGEID #: 58

excuse not to protect, by inaction or affirmative conduct, the exercise of fundamental rights.);

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (holding that

the First Amendment applies to public schools); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) (holding

that when a public university opens its facilities to the public for use, the university creates a forum

subject to the First Amendment); Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995)

(holding that a public university may not discriminate against a point of view in a limited public

forum such a university creates); Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District,

508 U.S. 384 (1993) (holding that a public school which opens its facilities to the public creates a

limited public forum and as such, the school cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination);

McCauley v. University of the Virgin Islands, 618 F.3d 232 (3rd Cir. 2010) (providing an excellent

summary of the clear differences between high schools and colleges and the important rationales

underlying the different speech rights afforded to people at each); First Amendment to the United

States Constitution; Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; see also Guide to

Free Speech on Campus, Second Edition. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

<https://dfkpq46c1l9o7.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FIRE-Guide-to-Free-

Speech-on-Campus-2nd-ed.pdf>. 2012.

52. Irrespective of whether or not Defendants enjoy qualified immunity, [q]ualified immunity

only shields government officials from monetary damages, not from injunctive relief[.] Ward v.

Polite, 667 F.3d 727, 742 (6th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).

53. The Ohio Legislature has seen fit to criminalize as a misdemeanor of the first degree the

act of a governmental official, under color of law, knowingly depriving, conspiring, or attempting

to deprive a person of their constitutional rights. R.C. 2921.45. If the Court finds that such

criminal conduct occurred on the part of Defendants or anyone acting in concert with Defendants,

15
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 16 of 21 PAGEID #: 59

the Court can and should refer the matter to the appropriate prosecutors office so that criminal

prosecution can be contemplated.

54. The United States Congress has seen fit to criminalize as a felony the act of two or more

persons conspiring to oppress a person in any state in the free exercise of any right secured to him

by the United States Constitution. 18 U.S.C. 241. If the Court finds that such criminal conduct

occurred on the part of Defendants or anyone acting in concert with Defendants, the Court can and

should refer the matter to the appropriate prosecutors office so that criminal prosecution can be

contemplated.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I
DEFENDANTS VIOLATED PLAINTIFFS
FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
42 U.S.C. 1983

55. The foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if each is fully

set forth herein.

56. Plaintiff is guaranteed the right to free speech pursuant to the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

57. Defendants violated Plaintiffs right to free speech by prohibiting Plaintiff from renting a

publicly available room to host speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees of the

planned event their Alt-Right and identitarian philosophies.

58. Defendants decision to prohibit Plaintiff from renting a publicly available room to host

speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees of the planned event their Alt-Right and

identitarian philosophies due to Defendants finding Alt-Right philosophy to be objectionable

constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

16
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 17 of 21 PAGEID #: 60

59. Defendants decision to prohibit Plaintiff from renting a publicly available room to host

speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees of the planned event their Alt-Right and

identitarian philosophies due to the threat of violence that Antifa protesters pose constitutes

unconstitutional content discrimination in the form of a hecklers veto. See Bible Believers, supra.

60. Defendants decision to prohibit Plaintiff from renting a publicly available room to host

speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees of the planned event their Alt-Right and

identitarian philosophies due to the uncertain and non-imminent threat of violence constitutes an

unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931); New York

Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

61. Defendants acted under the color of state law when Defendants prohibited Plaintiff from

renting a publicly available room to host speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees

of the planned event their Alt-Right and identitarian philosophies.

62. Due directly and proximately to Defendants having violated Plaintiffs right to free speech,

Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer injuries.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court will enter judgment in Plaintiffs

favor against Defendants by awarding Plaintiff: (1) a money judgment against Defendantsin

Defendants personal capacitiesin excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) for

general and punitive damages; (2) the reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff to

prosecute the instant civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988(b); and (3) any and all further relief

that can be awarded by law or equity.

COUNT II
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

63. The foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if each is fully

set forth herein.

17
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 18 of 21 PAGEID #: 61

64. The Court can and should decree that Defendants violated Plaintiffs right to free speech

by prohibiting Plaintiff from renting a publicly available room on the campus of OSU to host

speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees of the planned event their Alt-Right and

identitarian philosophies. See 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.

65. This Court can and should issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendants

whereby Defendants are ordered to permit Plaintiff to rent a publicly available room on the campus

of OSU for a fee to host speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees of the planned

event their Alt-Right and identitarian philosophies without Plaintiff paying for police protection

or posting bond or providing insurance for the event and which requires OSU to maintain law and

order via the use of law enforcement officers of its police department so as to protect the right of

the attendees of the event to safely speak in a meaningful manner. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Bible

Believers, supra; Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992) (holding that a

price-tag cannot be attached to the right to free speech by making controversial speakers pay for

police protection due to the threatened violence of their adversaries); Ohio Republican Party v.

Brunner, 543 F.3d 357, 361 (6th Cir. 2008) (describing elements for injunctive relief to be

awarded); Solid Rock Foundation v. Ohio State University, 478 F.Supp. 96 (S.D. Ohio 1979)

(using Sixth Circuit and Supreme Court case law to decide whether a preliminary injunction should

issue for a First Amendment-related case involving a public university).

66. Plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiffs claim that Defendants

violated Plaintiffs right to free speech.

67. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm in the form of Plaintiffs right to free speech being

denied to him should the Court not grant Plaintiff injunctive relief. See Connection Distrib. Co.

v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th Cir. 1998) (recognizing that the loss of First Amendment rights,

18
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 19 of 21 PAGEID #: 62

for even a minimal period of time, constitutes irreparable harm); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347,

373 (1976) (The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,

unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.).

68. The issuance of an injunction to permit Plaintiff to rent a publicly available room on the

campus of OSU for a fee to host speakersincluding Plaintiffto share with attendees of the

planned event their Alt-Right and identitarian philosophies without Plaintiff paying for police

protection or posting bond or providing insurance for the event and which requires OSU to

maintain law and order via the use of law enforcement officers of its police department so as to

protect the right of the attendees of the event to safely speak in a meaningful manner will not cause

Defendants to suffer substantial harm because Defendants are required by constitutional law to do

the same anyways.

69. The issuance of an injunction to permit Plaintiff to rent a publicly available room on the

campus of OSU for a fee to host speakersincluding Plaintiffwithout Plaintiff paying for police

protection or posting bond or providing insurance for the event and which requires OSU to

maintain law and order via the use of law enforcement officers of its police department so as to

protect the right of the attendees of the event to safely speak in a meaningful manner will serve the

public interest because it is in the publics interest for the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution to be honored and not disregarded by governmental actors.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court will award Plaintiff declaratory

relief by decreeing that Defendants violated Plaintiffs right to free speech and will award Plaintiff

preliminary and permanent injunctive relief whereby Defendants are ordered to timely permit

Plaintiff to rent a publicly room on the campus of OSU for a fee to host speakers to share with

attendees of the planned event their Alt-Right and identitarian philosophies without Plaintiff

19
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 20 of 21 PAGEID #: 63

paying for police protection or posting bond or providing insurance for the event and which

requires OSU to maintain law and order via the use of law enforcement officers of its police

department so as to protect the right of the attendees of the event to safely speak in a meaningful

manner.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiff hereby respectfully demands a trial by jury as to

all triable issues of fact in the instant civil action.

Respectfully submitted,

BRISTOW LAW, PLLC

/s/ Kyle Bristow

Kyle Bristow, Esq. (#0089543)
P.O. Box 381164
Clinton Twp., MI 48038
(P): (248) 838-9934
(E): BristowLaw@gmail.com
Attorney for Cameron Padgett

Dated: November 30, 2017

20
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 21 of 21 PAGEID #: 64
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13-1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 65

EXHIBIT A
Padgett v. Auburn University Opinion
Case: Case
2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13-1
3:17-cv-00231-WKW-WC Filed: 9
Document 11/30/17 Page: 2 ofPage
Filed 04/18/17 6 PAGEID
1 of 5 #: 66

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION

CAMERON PADGETT )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 3:17-CV-231-WKW
) (WO)
AUBURN UNIVERSITY, )
JAY GEORGE, in his official and )
individual capacity as President of )
Auburn University, )
CHANCE CORBETT, in his official )
and individual capacity as Director of )
Auburn University Public Safety )
Department, and )
ANDREA CONTI-ELIKINS, in her )
official and individual capacity as )
Supervisor of Student Center )
Reservations and James E. Foy )
Information Desk, Division of Student )
Affairs, )
)
Defendants. )

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Before the court is Plaintiffs motion for temporary restraining order, which

is construed as a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. # 2.) This is a civil rights

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he had a contract

with Auburn University to rent a room for the purpose of allowing Richard Spencer

to speak at 7:00 p.m. on April 18, 2017 (todays date). On April 14, 2017,

Defendants, on behalf of Auburn University, cancelled the event. (Doc. # 1-3.) The
Case: Case
2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13-1
3:17-cv-00231-WKW-WC Filed: 9
Document 11/30/17 Page: 3 ofPage
Filed 04/18/17 6 PAGEID
2 of 5 #: 67

court takes judicial notice that Richard Spencer is a white nationalist member of the

far right who subscribes to what he describes as identitarian politics. While Mr.

Spencers beliefs and message are controversial, Auburn presented no evidence that

Mr. Spencer advocates violence. Upon consideration of the motion and the evidence

presented at the April 18, 2017 hearing on the motion, the court concludes that the

motion is due to be granted.

The law of speech in this country is well-settled:

[A]ll fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected
by the federal Constitution from invasion by the states. The right of
free speech, the right to teach and the right of assembly are, of course,
fundamental rights. These may not be denied or abridged. But,
although the rights of free speech and assembly are fundamental, they
are not in their nature absolute.

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (internal

citations omitted), overruled on other grounds, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444

(1969). [T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit

a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except

where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action

and is likely to incite or produce such action. Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 447.

Auburn did not produce evidence that Mr. Spencers speech is likely to incite or

produce imminent lawless action.

The court finds that Auburn University cancelled the speech based on its belief

that listeners and protest groups opposed to Mr. Spencers ideology would react to

2
Case: Case
2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13-1
3:17-cv-00231-WKW-WC Filed: 9
Document 11/30/17 Page: 4 ofPage
Filed 04/18/17 6 PAGEID
3 of 5 #: 68

the content of his speech by engaging in protests that could cause violence or

property damage. However, discrimination on the basis of message content cannot

be tolerated under the First Amendment, and [l]isteners reaction to speech is not

a content-neutral basis for regulation. Forsyth Cty., Ga. v. Nationalist Movement,

505 U.S. 123, 13435 (1992). Moreover, counsel for Auburn represented that

Auburn University and local police, having been made aware of the risks many

weeks ago, are prepared to provide security in the event that this injunction issued.

Mr. Spencer has provided $2 million in insurance and has paid for the extra security

necessary to cover this event. Auburns attempted cancellation of the event, in

violation of its contract with Plaintiff and four days before the event, was not

narrowly tailored to protect the right to free speech while still addressing its own

security concerns.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction by demonstrating

(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that, if the relief is not

granted, he will suffer irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of his right to

freedom of speech and freedom of association, see Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347,

373 (1976) (The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of

time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.); (3) that the threatened injury

outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on Defendants; and (4) that entry of the

3
Case: Case
2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13-1
3:17-cv-00231-WKW-WC Filed: 9
Document 11/30/17 Page: 5 ofPage
Filed 04/18/17 6 PAGEID
4 of 5 #: 69

relief would serve the public interest. See Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403

F.3d 1223, 1225 (11th Cir. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion (Doc. # 2)

is GRANTED as follows:

1. Defendants and their agents and any person acting on Defendants

behalf are RESTRAINED and ENJOINED from cancelling, prohibiting, or

preventing listeners from attending the speech by Mr. Spencer on April 18, 2017.

2. The contract (Doc. # 1-1) for the room in which Mr. Spencer was

scheduled to speak is reinstated.

3. To the extent necessary to provide security, and in a manner that will

ensure compliance with Alabamas anti-mask law, Ala. Code 1975 13A-11-

9(a)(4), and the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, law enforcement

may prohibit attendees or protesters on the campus from wearing masks.1

4. Defendant Auburn University, through its Police Department shall take

all necessary and appropriate steps, within their available resources, to provide

security for Mr. Spencer, event attendees, peaceful protestors, and all other persons

on the Auburn University campus on April 18, 2017. Security personnel may not

cut off the free speech of Mr. Spencer or other persons except as a last resort to

1 The uncontradicted evidence presented at the hearing establishes that a group called
Anti-fa, known for donning masks and engaging in violent protests, intends to engage in non-
peaceful protest at Mr. Spencers speech at Auburn.
4
Case: Case
2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13-1
3:17-cv-00231-WKW-WC Filed: 9
Document 11/30/17 Page: 6 ofPage
Filed 04/18/17 6 PAGEID
5 of 5 #: 70

ensure security or to prevent violence or property damage, and only after first

making bona fide efforts to protect the speaker from . . . hostility by other, less

restrictive means. Bible Believers v. Wayne Cty., Mich., 805 F.3d 228, 255 (6th

Cir. 2015).

5. In light of the insurance procured by Mr. Spencer, Mr. Spencers

payment of fees for the provision of security, and Defendants representation that

they do not wish to request a bond, no bond is required.

6. At or before 6:30 p.m. on April 18, 2017, Mr. Spencer shall tender to

Auburn the $700.00 balance owed for facility rental.

DONE this 18th day of April, 2017.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
Case: 2:17-cv-00919-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 13-2 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 71

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Kyle Bristow, affirm that I am an attorney of record for a party to the above-caption civil

action, and on November 30, 2017, I served a true and accurate copy of this document upon all

attorneys of record who have registered to receive service of process via the Courts Electronic

Filing System by submitting said document to said system.

Furthermore, on November 30, 2017, I served a true and accurate copy of this document

upon Carpenter Lipps & Leland, LLP, Michael Hiram Carpenter, 280 Plaza, Ste. 1300, 280 North

High St., Columbus, OH 43215, by placing the same in a First Class postage prepaid, properly

addressed, and sealed envelope and in the United States Mails located in Charter Township of

Clinton, Macomb County, State of Michigan.

/s/ Kyle Bristow

Kyle Bristow, Esq. (P77200)
P.O. Box 381164
Clinton Twp., MI 48038
(P): (248) 838-9934
(E): BristowLaw@gmail.com
Attorney for Cameron Padgett

Dated: November 30, 2017