“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.

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.

Oregon does not have a compelling interest

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?