Failed City Commission candidate Michael Ritchie has reportedly threatened to sue Island News, Celebrate— and City Commissioner Tom Oosterhoudt. Celebrate is a local gay-oriented publication. Both newspapers are published by Winston Burrell, former publisher of the Key West Citizen.
"I received a call from Winston," Oosterhoudt said. "He said Ritchie had called him and threatened to sue us because of my criticism of him in my column in Celebrate last Friday. Ritchie also tried to e-mail me something— possibly a similar threat— but it didn't get through.
"Winston told me that Ritchie said that his attorney was Michael Halpern," Oosterhoudt said. "So I called Halpern at home. He told me that he was absolutely not Ritchie's attorney and that he has not even spoken to Ritchie for months— since Charlie Ramos had fired Ritchie as editor of Morning Star newspaper last December."
Ritchie was a candidate last year for the District 1 City Commission seat now held by Oosterhoudt. But Ritchie failed to even make the runoff, receiving only 43 votes.
During the runoff campaign, Ritchie used his position at Morning Star to repeatedly ridicule Oosterhoudt and his candidacy.
After the election, Oosterhoudt, who is gay, was invited to write a regular column in Celebrate.
Last month, March 24, a letter-to-the-editor from Ritchie was published in Island News. In that letter, Ritchie referenced one of Oosterhoudt's Celebrate columns, which described a party at a gay bar.
"This sort of behavior in public office places a mantle of shame over our entire community," Ritchie wrote. "If this is the sort of message our city leaders want to send to our youth, then I, for one, don't really care to be a part of that government."
"I sent a response letter to Island News," Oosterhoudt said, "but they didn't publish it. So I used my column in Celebrate to respond."
Oosterhoudt wrote in his column last Friday: "I had to laugh when I read Michael Ritchie's letter to the editor in Island News attacking me, when you consider that he has now been relegated to writing his sour grapes lament from a bar stool at his favorite bar . . ."
Oosterhoudt's column continued: "Apparently, the public agrees with you, Mr. Ritchie, because you probably got the smallest margin of votes in Key West history . . . Evidently the public does not want you to be part of that government either!"
Oosterhoudt also again called for Ritchie to reveal the details of his background. One of the issues during the campaign was that Ritchie refused to provide a resume or to reveal where he was or what he did before coming to Key West.
Burrell did not respond to a request for comment concerning Ritchie's reported threat. Ritchie has an unlisted telephone number.
"I don't see that Ritchie has a case against either the newspapers or against Commissioner Oosterhoudt," said Attorney Dick Wilson, former president of the First Amendment Lawyers Association.
"Oosterhoudt's column is clearly opinion," Wilson said. "And opinion— even when that opinion is scathing— is broadly protected by the First Amendment, especially when that opinion is about a public figure.
"And Michael Ritchie, a two-time political candidate for public office and, formerly, a high-profile and outspoken columnist himself for both Morning Star and Key West The Newspaper, is clearly a public figure."
A "public figure" is a person who voluntarily places himself in the limelight, open to criticism, such as a political candidate, Wilson explained.
Another local attorney was more pragmatic.
"No local lawyer is going to sue the husband of Judge Sandra Taylor," he said.
Burrell is married to Judge Taylor.
Ritchie is also threatening to sue Key West The Newspaper. He says he wants the company to buy back stock he was given when he was an employee.
"Michael Ritchie wrote a letter to the editor critical of me," Oosterhoudt said. "I simply responded to that letter with humor.
"Also, recall that Ritchie— when he was still working in journalism here— relentlessly bashed public officials and others editorially for years, arguing that his criticism was protected by the First Amendment. Doesn't it seem absolutely ludicrous that he would now threaten to sue when the shoe is on the other foot?"