Representative Brad Witt Thinks He Can Violate the First Amendment

Blast Zone No. 35514 - 2 Comments
Set Up On:
Category: Other - Politicians
Last Known Home Address:
21740 LINDBERG RD
Oregon House Bill 3047:

Members of the Oregon House or Representative led by Brad Witt think they can stop websites like ours from doxxing people like him by passing a bill authorizing a civil cause of action for such things. We will not tolerate government officials that blatantly violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This bill appears primarily motivated by the desire of government officials like police officers, prosecutors, judges, and Brad Witt to keep their home addresses off the internet. In response to his transgressions we are doxxing him, will be doxxing other co-sponsors of the bill, and time permitting may even dox every member of the Oregon House that voted in favor of it. The bill still must be approved by the Oregon Senate and signed by the Governor, so let this post serve as a warning to every member of the Oregon Senate that if they sponsor this bill they will be doxxed and if they they vote for it they will probably be doxxed.


We can do this because our server is in a foreign country, so we are the only Oregonians with any say as to what can or cannot be hosted on it, we will never honor any court in this state that issues a favorable ruling under the bill, and we will dox any government official in this state who aids anyone with enforcing it. That last part means that if you are a judge in the state of Oregon and you award a plaintiff who prevails in a cause of action under the bill with injunctive relief or monetary damages you will be doxxed. If you are a law enforcement officer and you assist any plaintiff with service of process you will be doxxed. If you are a government official who assists anyone with enforcing this unconstitutional bill in any way you will be doxxed.


As the Oregonian made clear, this Bill was introduced by members of the Oregon House of Representatives including ones that have been doxxed themselves and said that they needed the bill for their own benefit. This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which clearly says:


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Any law that prohibits the publication of true facts abridges the freedom of speech. There are of course exceptions to that freedom, some of which are mentioned in HB 3047 which we are uploading as a PDF with this article. Those exceptions are using personal information about people to commit crimes which includes posting that information for the purpose of causing someone physical harm. We have no problem with that aspect of the bill. What we have a problem with is their definition of "Harass" which reads as follows:


"'Harass' means to subject another to severe emotional distress such that the individual experiences anxiety, fear, torment or apprehension that may or may not result in a physical manifestation of severe emotional distress or a mental health diagnosis and is protracted rather than merely trivial or transitory." - HB 3047


That language opens the flood gates for any crybaby claiming to have experienced emotional distress as a result of true information being posted on the internet. The founder of Cop Blaster defeated a federal indictment years ago in which the United States Attorney's Office accused him of violating the internet stalking statute by inflicting "substantial emotional distress" on persons in other states by posting content on the internet and allowing others to post. During the negotiations that led to the dismissal of that charge his counsel made it clear that you cannot criminalize free speech with subjective claims of emotional distress. HB 3047 does not create a criminal offense, but the same logic applied. It creates a situation in which someone that posts a true fact online can be ordered to remove it and pay damages (economic, non-economic, punitive, and attorney's fees). Unfortunately for people like Brad Witt, such bills only achieve their desired effects if the poster voluntarily complies with injunctive relief orders and actually makes payments when ordered to pay damages. We will never comply with an injunction and we will never pay damages.


Who do we think we are? We are anyone smart enough to host their website offshore with people that won't honor court orders from the United States. We are anyone who knows that offshore banking and trusts can be utilized to avoid paying judgments ordered by American courts. We are anyone smart enough to create a database containing the home addresses of thousands of police officers, prosecutors, and judges while at the same time blocking that information from the internet unless the owner of the website cannot login for 14 days. That last one means that when we are in contempt it is in the government's best interest not to hold us in custody. Even if they do hold the owner, he spent over a year in a high security United States Penitentiary and does not fear jail. The last time he was in jail he spent his time disseminating home addresses of federal judges and law enforcement officials, some of which he memorized, to his fellow inmates. We are also close students of the law smart enough to fight this bill while acting as our own counsel should we must and pursue it through appellate courts until we can get it declared unconstitutional because as we have already established you cannot justify abridging the freedom of speech with subjective claims of emotional distress.


Conclusion


We will not legitimize illegitimate government actions with our compliance, we will make life worse for those that enforce illegitimate laws, and those that transgress us will regret it.


Note: Please do not use any information on this page for a criminal purpose. That includes damaging property or people, or threatening to do so.

We have updated the article with a video of the 5/12 hearing by the Oregon Senate Committee on Judiciary. At about 2:40 he says the bill was prompted due to him and his staff being doxxed. At 2:50 he refers to this article specifically.


His testimony makes it clear that he sponsored this bill for his own personal benefit. He doesn't like people expressing their First Amendment rights in ways that force him to take notice, so he is looking for excuses to silence them.


He justifies his position by accusing authors of having ill intentions that cannot be proven.

Rep. Witt mentioned this page today at a hearing about the bill. Video coming soon.

Login to Comment using a Cop Blaster Account.


 
 

Register if you don't have a Cop Blaster account.