Oregon Senate Hearing on Unconstitutional Anti-Doxxing Bill

The Oregon Senate Committee on Judiciary held a public hearing on 5/12/2021 to allow the public to submit testimony on HB 3047 known as the anti-doxxing bill. The testimony presented in favor of the bill is littered with examples of First Amendment protected speech that the bill aims create a civil cause of action against. Speech like posting the home address of a government official online to help protesters organize rallies there, the contact information of one's employer for the purpose of criticizing the company for employing them, the personal email address of someone you want to direct an online petition to, etc.

Rep. Brad Witt begins by complaining about CopBlaster.com doxxing him in response to his support of the bill (https://copblaster.com/blast/35514/representative-brad-witt-thinks-he-can-violate-the-first-amendment). In the dox, CopBlaster.com included example of federal court precedents that uphold the right to post home addresses of government officials as a form of political protest. He clearly intends to give himself recourse for what is constitutionally protected speech.

Rep. Bill Post presents several examples of himself being doxxed in ways that are clearly protected by the First Amendment and some that are arguably not. CopBlaster.com doxxed him for sponsoring the bill in the House to make an example of First Amendment protected speech that involves disclosing his home address as part of political criticism(https://copblaster.com/blast/35515/representative-bill-post-championed-unconstitutional-bill). To his credit, some of his examples include speech we not believe to be protected by the First Amendment like posting his social security, bank account and credit card numbers. That type of stuff is not normally publicly available, lacks value as tools for political speech, and is analogous to "authentication features" the unauthorized transfer of which is prohibited under federal law. We do not support posting that type of information and would support legislation treating it the same as "authentication features." Unfortunately, Mr. Post is lumping the type of private information which is typically required to successfully steal someone's identity in with other types of information. Other types of information like home address, personal phone number, personal email address, and contact information of one's employer. If Post narrowly tailored his bill to address just the truly private information (SSN and financial data) we would not have a problem with it, but by including publicly available information that federal courts have protected the publication of, his bill sweeps too broadly to comply with the First Amendment.

Please visit our Oregon House or Representatives Directory of Home Addresses to see an example of constitutionally protected speech with links to case law supporting the right to engage in such speech at https://copblaster.com/blast/35518/oregon-house-of-representatives-directory-of-home-addresses