“Oregon Revised Statute 165.540(1)(c). This law prohibited anyone from making an audio recording unless that person “specifically informed” others they were recording. But the law also included special permissions from the government to allow for non-notified recording of the police, but not any other government employee,” O’Keefe said.
“That just leaves the government putting its thumb on the lens of newsgathering, deciding which news is easiest to get and skewing reporting. Like the Ninth Circuit has explained before, whatever concerns Oregon has over shoddy reporting or “fake news,” the remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true and not the suppression of speech.” O’Keefe added.
It is actually insane how long this law existed and the fact that it took 3 years post lawsuit for such an obvious decision to be made.
Don’t worry, they will pass a law almost the exact same, play it out in courts, lose again, but still have the laws on the books. Why do you think Colorado keeps targeting Christians for “discrimination” against fags? The process is the punishment with the caveat the legislature will keep pushing until they win.
You have to do something to curtail the power of the people who make those laws and the allies of those people if you want anything to actually improve.
It's a fairly common and old sort of law that's still on the books here and there. I think given how rarely it comes up in legal cases is why it tends to remain on the books for so long.
I've found that even if you only have one side of the conversation (yours) it's still particularly useful. Their responses still have to logically make sense with your questions, so they can't say shit from whole cloth. It's not perfect but it still helps.
Incorporate/repeat their responses in your follow up questions, still has no use in actual court and people determined to not trust you still won't trust you, but at least it'll show more complete picture to someone with an open mind
Even though they won, the mindset of these judges is frightening. So as long as the government gives a good enough excuse, Constitutional rights can be overturned?
It is actually insane how long this law existed and the fact that it took 3 years post lawsuit for such an obvious decision to be made.
Don’t worry, they will pass a law almost the exact same, play it out in courts, lose again, but still have the laws on the books. Why do you think Colorado keeps targeting Christians for “discrimination” against fags? The process is the punishment with the caveat the legislature will keep pushing until they win.
You have to do something to curtail the power of the people who make those laws and the allies of those people if you want anything to actually improve.
It's a fairly common and old sort of law that's still on the books here and there. I think given how rarely it comes up in legal cases is why it tends to remain on the books for so long.
I've found that even if you only have one side of the conversation (yours) it's still particularly useful. Their responses still have to logically make sense with your questions, so they can't say shit from whole cloth. It's not perfect but it still helps.
Incorporate/repeat their responses in your follow up questions, still has no use in actual court and people determined to not trust you still won't trust you, but at least it'll show more complete picture to someone with an open mind
Even though they won, the mindset of these judges is frightening. So as long as the government gives a good enough excuse, Constitutional rights can be overturned?
Sorry no standings