August 4, 2023

Ellen F. Rosenblum
Attorney General of the State of Oregon
Oregon Department of Justice
1162 Court St NE
Salem,OR 97301

Dear Ms. Rosenblum,

I am writing in response to your recent filing of an Amicus brief in Case 23-30445 in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth District- States of Mississippi and Louisiana Vs. Joseph Biden, Et Al.

I recently consulted our State Constitution and Bill of Rights and found: “Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.”

I’m certain this is a right we can agree is essential to the democratic process we enjoy.

I have been under the assumption that those words meant what they say; especially, “No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever.”

There has been a clear pattern in recent years for government agents and employees to meet with various high tech companies for the express purpose of controlling and directing the public narrative on important issues of the day. For example, see:

• https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/over-50-biden-administration-employees-12-us-agencies-involved-in-social-media-censorship-push-documents-4704349
• https://www.city-journal.org/article/government-tech-collusion-threatens-free-speech

The result has been the cancelling, suppression, and outright banning of the authors and presenters of alternate points of view. When this occurs, how is it not a violation of these authors’ or presenters’ free speech rights?

Given the now indisputable overreach employed in recent years to suppress alternate points of view on such things as effectiveness of masks, effectiveness of lockdowns, and safety and effectiveness of mNRA technology by highly qualified doctors, psychologists, and economists these free speech rights have clearly been violated.

Any objective evaluation of the “mis-information” the government wants to suppress shows that their only interest is in suppressing information that runs contrary to the narrative du jour. This fact was noted by Judge Doughty in his opinion.

Judge Doughty’s injunction only prohibits unlawful conduct preventing the named defendants from communicating with social-media platforms “for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.” 

It says nothing about meeting together to discuss how to better serve the public interest.

Your brief and accompanying press release argue that government’s only motive in meeting and dialoging with high tech companies is to protect people. That clearly and demonstrably has not been the case in recent years.

Even a cursory review of the emails and tweets that have been released in association with this case show a clear pattern of control and suppression that are meant to keep certain opinions, facts, and ideas out of the public square and out of public consciousness to serve the ends and plans of government employees and elected officials.

The weaponization and politicization of the justice system, the media, and many other areas of public life will be the death of our Republic. The rule of law is no longer the guiding principle of our nation.

Your participation in and support of this Amicus brief convinces me that your first interest is not in serving the people of Oregon and protecting their rights, but rather to serve the political and ideological aims and objectives of your party, and this saddens me deeply.

I would like to make one final point with regards to the last clause of Article 8- “but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.”

It is clear that what is being referenced here is to personal responsibility. That responsibility works two ways, both for the person writing, speaking, or printing, as well as for the person consuming speech, print, or other kinds of media.

If I write or say something that causes harm or loss to another person then I must take responsibility for that loss or harm and suffer the appropriate consequences. There may be laws that apply to provide remedy their loss.

On the other hand, if I consume “misinformation” and suffer harm or loss as a result that is on me, and I have to take responsibility for my error. It may be that I can take some legal action such as protest, seek remediation, or sue to recover my loss.

In either case it is personal responsibility that is required to resolve the problem.

In your brief and accompanying press release you and your fellow AGs make the point several times that your interest in this case is to protect the public from online harm.

It is in the interests of the State to keep the public afraid, or in a perpetual state of victimhood. From these conditions it can assimilate power and take action beyond its constitutionally prescribed limits. It is a huge temptation for the State to engage in this “game.”

But, it is in the public interest for the State to NOT go down this path but rather to encourage the public to take personal responsibility.

A Nanny State is corrosive to our Republic. A strong, responsible, and well informed Public is the best guarantee that our Republic remains strong.


Sincerely,