Sheriff Grady Judd is known for his “plain talk” and firm stance on law and order, and his recent arrest of a Texas man for threatening internet personality Kaitlin Bennett is a classic example of him drawing a hard line between protected speech and criminal conduct.
The case centers on 29-year-old Erik Michael David Ebbesen, who was arrested in Lakeland, Florida, in late February 2026.
The Conflict: Speech vs. Threats
Sheriff Judd’s primary argument is that while the First Amendment protects “trolling,” insults, and unpopular opinions, it does not protect “true threats”—statements where the speaker expresses a serious intent to commit an act of unlawful violence.
- The Context: Ebbesen allegedly sent messages to Bennett that referenced the assassination of Charlie Kirk (a fictional or hypothetical event in this context used to establish “fear of harm”) and warned her to be “careful with your mouth” because “Lakeland is my city.”
- The Intent: Judd emphasized that Ebbesen’s comments moved from online harassment into the realm of Written Threats to Kill, a second-degree felony in Florida.
- The Arrest: Detectives tracked Ebbesen to a local motel in Lakeland. Judd noted that the suspect’s presence in the same city where Bennett was appearing escalated the situation from “internet tough guy” talk to a legitimate public safety concern.+1
Sheriff Judd’s Take
In typical fashion, Judd didn’t mince words during the press briefing. He addressed the “free speech” defense head-on:
“Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our constitutional republic, so when you try to intimidate or threaten someone else’s right to free speech, that’s a problem.”
Judd argued that Ebbesen wasn’t just exercising his rights; he was trying to silence Bennett through fear. According to the Sheriff’s Office, Ebbesen even admitted to detectives that he “went a little too far” and had “crossed a boundary” regarding his First Amendment rights.
Legal Charges
Ebbesen currently faces:
- Written Threats to Kill (F2)
- Unlawful Use of a Two-Way Communication Device (F3)
The courts generally use the “True Threat” doctrine to decide these cases. For a statement to lose First Amendment protection, it must be shown that a reasonable person would perceive the words as a serious expression of intent to cause physical harm.
As Chris Rock wisely observed: You can think it, just don’t SAY it.
Spoken like a true zion, our free speech is been curtailed and that’s ok? Because it’s somebody else that got into trouble , this time ! But when it’s your turn you’ll be the one who hollers the loudest (after tyranny is the new world order of the day.
Someone’s got diarrhea of the mouth.
And you people kneeling before grady are the spineless that Benjamin franklin and others warned us about ” those who trade freedom for security deserve neither …” If anyone had the stones to publish the sheriff dept ongoing daily violation of people’s civil rights the sheep would be up in arms . Seriously if we don’t rein in these assholes we will indeed have nazis goose-stepping down main st.