Court Agrees On Portland Police Violated Law By Livestreaming Protests

Imagine for a second that a burglar breaks into your home and steals things, assaults you, and sets your house on fire. You don’t know who this person is because it was dark and happened quickly and you have never seen them before. Your interior security camera caught a glimpse at the criminal’s face. The local news posts the video to try to solicit assistance from the public, and the person sues you because you put their face on tv. Sounds ridiculous?  

Antifa is actively suing the Portland, Seattle Police Department for a similar situation. The terrorist group burning down Portland and the rest of the country seems to think they’re entitled enough to keep their identity private.  

To go off trail a little bit, where is the Federal Bureau of Investigations? Have they not infiltrated this group yet to make a case against them? The FBI seemed very determined when it came to the Gretchen Whitmire kidnapping, so much so that half of the individuals that were part of the plot were FBI agents and the January 6th Capitol Riots, and they turned a blind eye to a group that took over part of a city for months. People were killed, and women were abused.  

A judge sided with Antifa and said that the live police stream of riots somehow broke the law. ORS 181A.250 was violated. The law restricts law enforcement from collecting information in circumstances of “political, religious or social views, associations or activities of any individual, group, associated, organization, corporation, business or partnership” unless there are grounds to believe that they’re committing a crime. That doesn’t constitute any lawsuit that’s being filed. Anyone actively involved in riots or protests was subject to investigation due to how riots and protests occurred.  

Kelly Simon, legal director of ACLU Foundation of Oregon, says that law enforcement notices no business recording protesters to gain information.  

So, why did everyone demand that police departments get body cameras? Now that they have found that police officers aren’t as “violent” or “racist” as they initially anticipated, they want to backtrack and remove police officers’ ability to use video footage? Of course, they do.  

The person responsible for filing the lawsuit, Marie Tyvoll, said, “When I showed up to support Black Lives at a protest, I did not expect that the police would invest so much time, money, and energy in broadcasting my face over the internet.”  

Given Tyvoll’s appearance at the protests and her calling for violence to stop, she was aware that violence was part of the protests and actively engaged in protests. That constitutes the police department recording her as they please. 

When someone is on a public street with others engaged in criminal activity, they aren’t exempt from the rules of society. They can’t just sue the police department. After all, their feelings were hurt because they were filmed in public. Keyword, public.  

Tyvoll and others are fighting a losing battle. The only situation that Tyvoll would win the lawsuit is if she can prove that she wasn’t involved in the protests and riots and if you watch the Youtube video above, it’s clear that she was not only involved in protests but knew that there was violence associated with them and therefore will lose the lawsuit.