Skip to main content
A federal court judge likened the threatening words of State Sen. Brian Boquist to those of "a bully on the playground" and of "a character out of a Clint Eastwood movie," in a memorably phrased decision issued Jan. 7.
United States District Judge Michael McShane dismissed the case filed by Boquist challenging the requirement that he provide 12 hours' notice before entering the Capitol.
Boquist and others fled the state to deny the Democratic majority a quorum and block a carbon cap-and-trade bill. During that conflict, Boquist appeared to threaten violence against Senate President Peter Courtney as well as any state police sent to retrieve the senators. The Senate subsequently imposed a requirement that he offer 12 hours' notice when he planned to appear in the Capitol.
Boquist argued that was a violation of his right to free speech among other constitutional protections.
"While both sides can point fingers and complain that the other is overreacting to a political situation, Plaintiff's chosen words on the Senate floor were those of a bully on the playground," wrote McShane.
The notably plainspoken decision, which has been previously reported by The Oregonian and Salem Reporter among others, did not stop there.
"Remarkably, Plaintiff argues that his statement to Defendant Courtney— 'if you send the [S]tate [P]olice to get me, Hell's coming to visit you personally'—was a statement of religious expression," McShane continued. "But here, Plaintiff seems to overlook the fact that he sounds more like a character out of a Clint Eastwood movie than he does Mother Theresa."
The judge who dismissed claims acknowledges Boquist may have had nonviolent reasons for offering widely reported quotes that sounded as if he would do harm, including to any state police sent to bring him back to the Capitol. ("Send bachelors and come heavily armed," he told KGW-TV. "I'm not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon. It's just that simple.")
"While it may be that Plaintiff's words were no more than dramatic flourishes for media consumption, it is not this Court's job to second guess the finding of a state legislative body that some of its members felt frightened by what the Plaintiff said," wrote McShane. "Words, it turns out, sometimes have consequences. Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's First Amendment rights."
