In the motion filed today, PV and PVA request that the court strike down the laws creating the current multiple-party consent regime and grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against enforcement of these laws against any activity that would have constituted secret recordings and the release of those recordings. The lawsuit states:
“But for Oregon recording law, PVA would investigate allegations of corruption at the offices of the Oregon Public Records Advocate and the Public Records Advisory Council. In 2019, Oregon’s Public Records Advocate resigned due to alleged pressure from or mismanagement by Governor Kate Brown. But for section 165.540, PVA would investigate this issue and secretly record interactions with the Advocate, his staff, and members of the PRA Council in: (a) open-air cafes in Portland, (b) public parks, (c) on sidewalks, and (d) in other public areas. If secret recording is not achievable, it would utilize open recording in these same circumstances. Specifically, the project would examine whether the Advocate and Council operate impartially or with pressure from the Governor. These methods of newsgathering are all illegal under section 165.540.”
The lawsuit goes into more detail about how PV and PVA could focus investigations in Oregon after the dramatic rise in violent protests in Portland between the police and members of Antifa and other fringe groups, stating:
“…Some newspaper reports suggest that Portland police have been ordered to stand down and to not engage protestors, even when they act violently or damage property. This investigation involves four distinct sets of reporting activities:
PV would secretly record interactions between the police and protestors to observe and report whether usual policing functions are occurring in Portland.
PV would secretly record discussions between PV journalists and the police to gather candid police perspectives on the causes of the protests and investigate issues that may not be known by the public.
PV would secretly record discussions between PV journalists and protestors to gather protestors’ perspectives about the causes of the protests, to learn about instances of police abuse, and to investigate any anti-police animus.
In less dangerous situations or when the situation does not permit for ease of secret recording, PV would openly record discussions with protestors but without specifically informing everyone in the conversation of the recording.”
Ben Barr, one of our attorneys filing the lawsuit, said, “Oregon law currently makes it a criminal act to record a protest, or an interview, or nearly any other interaction without clear and conspicuous notice to anyone whose voice might be recorded.”
Barr said this criminalization of journalism strikes at the exercise of the First Amendment.
“The courts have used this law to endorse the arrest of a citizen who held a camera, warned the person he was filming that he had them on camera, but didn’t specifically warn the camera captured audio,” he said. “It is absurd. But more importantly, it is unconstitutional.”
Jered Ede, the Chief Legal Officer for PV and PVA, said while the Oregon laws offer very limited opportunities to openly record, the law is suspiciously under and over-inclusive.
“Oregon stands at odds with a vast majority of states which permit undercover journalism, with the United States Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of the press, and with decades of legal Supreme Court rulings deeming laws such Oregon’s unconstitutional,” said Ede.
Victoria, we will not rest until all of our American rights are secured.
Stay tuned…more updates on this coming soon.
Yours truly,
James O’Keefe
