Reporter Shasta Kearns Moore investigated a teacher accused of an inappropriate relationship with a student.
Before her story was even published, the threats began. He vowed to sue her and her newspaper for all of the mean, awful, accurate things they were about to print.
And Moore knew they were accurate. She had the documents to prove it.
She also had the newspaper’s lawyer to navigate her past the intimidation and assure the publishers they were on solid legal footing. The story ran. The threats stopped.
Not all journalists are so lucky, Moore testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee May 5. That’s one of the flaws of House Bill 3564, she said.
The bill gets lawyers and state statutes involved when people want to demand (not request or suggest, but demand) corrections and retractions from news organizations.
“Most journalists in Oregon don’t have access to legal counsel,” Moore said. “They’re freelancers, community reporters or small newsroom editors.”
The bill assumes good faith on the part of people seeking corrections, she said. Meanwhile, it assumes journalists need to be legally compelled to correct their mistakes.
“Unfortunately, bad-faith actors exist, and they often use legal threats as a tool of silencing,” Moore told lawmakers. “Journalism — especially at the local level — is already in crisis. Laws like this tip the balance even further in favor of powerful individuals who want to avoid scrutiny.”
Not a single person had anything to say against House Bill 3564 when it first came up for a public hearing March 18 in the House Judiciary Committee. It was passed unanimously by the committee April 7.
It also received a unanimous vote on the floor of the House before it was sent over to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Seven people spoke against it during the May 8 public hearing.
While nine people submitted written testimony for the House hearing in support of the bill, it was down to four in the Senate committee. A dozen people submitted written opposition testimony in the Senate committee, up from zero in the House.
Street Roots’ stories about the bill April 2 and 16 were the only major media attention the bill received, until Oregon Public Broadcasting covered the bill May 12. It even initially slipped under the radar of Eugene Weekly, the paper that inadvertently set the bill in motion.
The bill has roots that extend to the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
House Bill 3564 was sponsored by new state Rep. Darin Harbick, R-Oakridge. It’s the only bill he introduced during his freshman legislative session.
Tyler Harbick, his son and legislative aide, attended the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. But he didn’t like the way Eugene Weekly portrayed his involvement — which the outlet based on Harbick’s own social media posts. OPB reported that the younger Harbick makes a monthly salary of $4,747 as his father’s legislative aid.
He and his lawyer formally asked for — and received — a correction to a statement the paper posted Dec. 12.
Eugene Weekly Editor Camilla Mortenson told Street Roots she didn’t realize the incident sparked a bill before the Legislature until she read Street Roots’ first story about the proposed legislation.
Mortenson told state senators her interaction with Harbick’s lawyer was unique in her journalistic experience.
“I’ve handled errors,” she said. “I’ve handled retraction demands. I’ve handled threats over the years. This year was my first verbal demand. Like many small newspapers and publishers, I don’t have the money for extended litigation, even if I know the Weekly is not in error.”
Her paper doesn’t balk at corrections, Mortenson said.
“Like every reporter I know, we at Eugene Weekly correct any errors immediately and publicly,” she said. “That is how we ourselves, as journalists, develop trust and transparency with our readers.”
The bill presents a danger to journalism, she added.
“Senate Bill 3564 gives unneeded extra time to craft spurious arguments and try to intimidate journalists,” she said. “It gives a big guy with more money the ability to kill and quell the public-interest journalism that the little guys, the readers, need to fully participate in democracy.”
The bill tweaks existing state law to give people 40 days instead of 20 to act if they feel they’ve been defamed by a news organization. Harbick said that gives them time to find a lawyer trained in defamation law and mount an argument.
Aggrieved parties must present their demand in person or by certified mail.
The publisher of the material then has two weeks to investigate and determine if the demand is legitimate.
If the publisher decides a correction or retraction is warranted, it must be published in the next edition (in the case of newspapers and other printed publications) or immediately (in the case of digital platforms).
Digital platforms must place a link to the correction or retraction on the website’s home page and any page containing the allegedly defamatory statements. The publisher can also immediately remove the statements from the website entirely.
Radio and television stations must air the correction or retraction in the first broadcast after it is deemed valid. In the case of documentaries shown in cinemas, the publisher must present the correction or retraction in the next public viewing.
Rep. Harbick said his bill is not an assault on the press. Editors are free to reject demands for corrections. However, they lose the correction as a legal shield if the aggrieved person proceeds with a broader defamation case.
“This has nothing to do with free speech,” Harbick said during the Senate hearing. “Defamation is not considered protected speech under the First Amendment. When reporters exaggerate or put in extra words that defame someone, that’s wrong. This bill helps correct the record of victims of defamation statements.”
State Sen. Lew Frederick, D-Portland, noted that the bill only targets traditional journalism outlets. Blogs and other forms of media outside the mainstream press would be unaffected.
Harbick agreed. “I believe it has to be a news organization,” he said.
Julia Shumway, president of the Oregon Legislative Correspondents Association, noted that the complaining party gets 40 days to lawyer up, while news organizations only get two weeks to decide how to respond.
“As journalists, we want to provide accurate information, and we want to correct inaccuracies as quickly as possible,” Shumway said. “Waiting six weeks doesn’t help serve the public.”
That also gives potential plaintiffs an unfair advantage, she added.
“Unlike some of the elected officials or companies or state agencies that would take advantage of the longer timeline of Senate Bill 3564, most of our newsrooms don’t have in-house legal counsel or money to have lawyers on retainer,” Shumway said.
“Every dollar that would be spent on attorneys’ fees responding to demands for corrections or retractions is a dollar that can’t be used for things like journalists’ salaries or public records fees or travel for on-the-ground reporting,” she added.
Media owners are often spooked by legal threats, Shumway said. She pointed to the April 22 resignation of “60 Minutes” Executive Producer Bill Owens while CBS News is being sued and verbally assaulted by President Donald Trump.
Karynn Fish, a communications specialist who lives on the Oregon Coast, testified that the bill does nothing to improve current state law.
“It just extends the window for legal threats and adds vague new requirements that could easily be misused, especially against small newsrooms doing high-stakes reporting with limited resources,” Fish said.
“We should not make it easier to punish the press for doing its job,” she said. “Oregon’s current law strikes a fair balance. This bill upsets that balance and risks silencing needed voices.”
House Bill 3564 modifies rules for demanding corrections and retractions from news organizations. The House Judiciary Committee passed the Republican-led bill April 7. It was passed unanimously by the full House April 17. It is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee. A public hearing was held May 8.
Street Roots is an award-winning weekly investigative publication covering economic, environmental and social inequity. The newspaper is sold in Portland, Oregon, by people experiencing homelessness and/or extreme poverty as means of earning an income with dignity. Street Roots newspaper operates independently of Street Roots advocacy and is a part of the Street Roots organization. Learn more about Street Roots. Support your community newspaper by making a one-time or recurring gift today.
© 2024 Street Roots. All rights reserved. | To request permission to reuse content, email editor@streetroots.org or call 503-228-5657, ext.
This article appears in May 21, 2025.