Oregon State Senator Michael Dembrow Voted for Unconstitutional Bill

Blast Zone No. 35553 - 0 Comments
Set Up On:
Category: Other - Politicians
Last Known Home Address:
Portland, Oregon *****

Oregon State Senator Michael Dembrow was one for four members of the Committee on Judiciary and Ballot Measure 110 Implementation to vote in favor of HB 3047 also known as the anti-doxxing bill. We went into great detail as to why it is unconstitutional (https://copblaster.com/blast/35518/oregon-house-of-representatives-directory-of-home-addresses) and are incorporating those arguments by reference in this article. Unlike other pieces covering this issue, we are keeping this one short. We had never heard of Dembrow before this week and are only writing this to make good on our promise to dox any state senator that votes in favor of this bill.

Sen. Dembrow had every opportunity to review relevant case law and consider it before casting his vote because we submitted testimony containing the proper citations (https://copblaster.com/uploads/files/hb3047-testimony.pdf). Despite that he voted for it anyway.

According to public records, Michael E. Dembrow is a 69 year old resident of Portland, Oregon. His home address and cell phone number ((503)914-9723) are listed on the Oregon Secretary of State website (https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/cfDetail.do?page=search&cfRsn=20286&OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=6OPY-ODL9-JURR-W9E1-VAQE-4FF2-ALWG-FP5N). It also listed the email address michael[at]michaeldembrow.com . We are copying that information here because HB 3047 aims to create a civil cause of action for doing just that as long as he can show that this posting caused him anxiety and that causing him anxiety was among our intentions when writing this article. We would love to find out that reading this caused him anxiety, but anxiety as to what? Fear that someone might picket outside his house, call his cell phone to complain at an inconvenient hour, or send him a strongly worded email? The language of the bill encompasses all those things despite all of them being protected by the First Amendment. When the facial language of a bill is so broad that it covers constitutionally protected speech then it is unconstitutionally overbroad.

Login to Comment using a Cop Blaster Account.


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