Ben Edtl exposes plans to surveil, compile and “mitigate” the speech of Oregonians
The Oregon Secretary of State completed a
Request for Proposals seeking the development of software to “identify and mitigate harmful information online as it relates to elections (misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information or MDM).” Negotiations for the RFP is scheduled to execute October 27th, 2023, in time for the 2024 election season.
The RFP refers to a “significant increase in burdensome public records requests over the past two years seemingly fueled by MDM on social media.” It refers to MDM as “threats” throughout the RFP.
The purpose states, “In order to effectively promote accurate information regarding election administration and combat MDM, the OED and CC must have the capability to detect and analyze MDM. OED and CC currently do not have capacity or technology support to track, follow, and trace all of the threats.”
“The only way I can comprehend the SoS’s reference to threats is because the speech targeted by the SoS to ‘mitigate’ is confirmable truth,” states Ben Edtl. Edtl is a plaintiff in the lawsuit
Thielman v. Fagan which claims there is a “crisis in confidence” in Oregon’s election system and challenging the legality of Vote by Mail. The case is now in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and was victoriously awarded expedition based on the timing of the upcoming General Election and the merit of evidence.
This past July Democrat House Speaker Dan Rayfield, who is now running for Oregon Attorney General, along with the
Secretary of State’s Office conspired with Meta and USA Today to censor one of Edtl’s Instagram reels and suppress his account. In the video on X, Edtl discusses the evidence brought against the Secretary of State in Theilman v Fagan. Evidence obtained by those “burdensome public records requests,” which is now the last remaining channel for citizens to provide oversight on the integrity of State managed elections.
“This is extraordinarily scary,” states Edtl about the RFP. “Rather than address the blatant election security issues and the ever-increasing removal of transparency, the State is cracking down on the most basic of Civil Rights: Free Speech.”
The U.S. Supreme Court, in
Brandenburg v. Ohio, established that speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment unless it is likely to incite "imminent lawless action." Brandenburg was convicted for a speech at a Klan rally advocating violence under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute. The syndicalism law made it illegal to advocate "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform." The court found that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech and ignored whether or not the advocacy it criminalized actually led to imminent lawless action, rendering the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution. If this case was unconstitutional, it will be impossible for Oregon to not violate free speech in this RFP in its attempt to limit speech.
Under Section 1.5.2 the RFP lists one of its primary objectives as sharing information with the FBI and State Police. The RFP also asks for reports to social media platforms that censors accounts sharing information opposed by the Secretary of State. The Minimum Solution Requirements are:
- The Solution must have the capability to monitor online media.
- The Solution must have the capability of providing notifications.
- The Solution must not exceed a total cost of $146,000 for a 16-month period of performance.
The Secretary of State is using procurement statutes under ORS 279A.050(4) as the authority for contracting with a vendor to administer a censorship program. The Secretary of State's office did not respond to a request for a comment.
--Donna Bleiler| Post Date: 2023-10-28 12:29:48 | Last Update: 2023-10-28 19:21:49 |
