In July, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made bold commitments aimed at confronting what she described as threats posed by ‘anarchists’ and ‘Antifa-affiliated groups’ in Portland.
In a strong statement, Noem pledged to take immediate legal action against those who circulated personal information of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers within the city.
She connected the allegations to flyers detailing the officers’ identities, along with a photograph that showcased trash accumulating on one officer’s lawn.
In her July remarks, Noem blamed unnamed politicians for supposedly fostering such hostile actions against law enforcement.
“We will prosecute those who dox ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law,” Noem declared, asserting that these actions supported cartels and human traffickers.
However, as months have passed since these claims, there appears to be a notable lack of action from her agency, especially when compared to legal efforts taken by federal prosecutors in neighboring states.
On a recent Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a press release alleging that drug cartels had placed bounties on ICE agents and reiterated claims from Noem about the actions of Portland’s Antifa-affiliated groups, although no specific evidence was provided.
“Our agents are facing ambushes, drone surveillance, and death threats, all because they dare to enforce the laws passed by Congress,” Noem wrote in this latest communication.
Despite growing tensions, the expected prosecution of doxing cases in Oregon has yet to manifest, raising eyebrows among legal experts.
A grand jury in the U.S. District Court of Central California did indict three activists in late September for conspiracy related to the publication of an ICE officer’s home address, but this case is still regarded as legally questionable by free speech advocates.
“There’s some significant daylight between the administration’s rhetoric and the cases that they’re actually bringing,” said Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
He indicated that proving these cases could be more complicated than previously anticipated for the administration.
An asked ICE spokesperson, who remained anonymous, directed inquiries about the lack of doxing charges in Oregon to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and referenced a recent press release that provided doxing examples but did not cite any events specifically from Oregon.
Meanwhile, Natalie Baldassarre, a DOJ spokesperson, reiterated the need to refer questions back to ICE and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oregon, which declined to offer insights into ongoing investigations.
The issues surrounding doxing have gained prominence amid escalated protest actions targeting ICE facilities, particularly following the peak in June.
Conversational court filings by federal prosecutors have illustrated that the personal information of agents is under peril, leading to charges against over 30 individuals for crimes like assaulting federal officers and damaging government property.
Notably, the filings frequently allude to protesters who have harassed ICE clients and employees, often trailing them with cameras and making intimidating remarks about knowing where the ‘target lives.’
Dominick Skinner, a researcher and journalist based in the Netherlands, has been connected to one of the groups identified by Noem.
His organization, The Crustian Daily, aims to expose abuses tied to state violence and corporate wrongdoing.
Skinner described his cohort’s methods, which involve analyzing video documentation alongside public records to identify ICE agents, echoing similar techniques used by law enforcement for facial recognition.
He indicated that more charges regarding doxing could be on the horizon, particularly given the recent claims from DHS about Portland-based Antifa groups acting as a protective shield for drug cartels.
“The reality is that the people fighting against ICE aren’t as violent as them,” he said, pointing out that their strategies hinge more on intelligence rather than violence.
Previous administrations have faced criticism for their statements centered on the safety of ICE officers.
Reports from Colorado Public Radio revealed on October 2 that both public records and court filings show only a 25% increase in assaults against ICE officers, starkly contradicting the Administration’s claim of a staggering 1000% rise.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has publicly accused ICE of withholding data concerning officer assaults, dismissing them as misconstructions and distractions.
In support of the narrative surrounding officer safety, U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee has introduced legislation aimed at penalizing individuals who publicly disclose officer names with the intent to obstruct immigration enforcement or investigations.
U.S Attorney General Pam Bondi recently emphasized her agency’s effectiveness in pressuring tech companies like Meta to remove applications and groups that motivate users to track ICE officer activities.
Oregon’s approach to doxing depicts a complicated legal landscape.
The term gained notoriety in the 1990s through internet hackers and sleuths, prompting state legislators to create civil penalties against it in 2021 after the wave of social justice protests sparked by events like George Floyd’s murder.
Lawmakers passed a narrow anti-doxing law that reflected First Amendment concerns, establishing doxing as a misdemeanor under new legislative guidelines that aim to curtail personal information dissemination if it leads to crimes such as vandalism or assault.
Despite the updated laws, successful prosecutions for doxing have been infrequent.
Sgt. Aaron Schmautz, executive director of the Oregon Coalition of Police and Sheriffs, supported legislation after experiencing doxing in 2010, which resulted in severe threats against his family.
He noted that the Oregon anti-doxing measures arose due to worries about extreme behaviors directed toward public officials.
While balancing public safety with First Amendment rights, the federal nature of doxing cases involving ICE adds layers of complexity.
The controversial California case uses a statute from the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, which aims to protect officials like judges and prosecutors from personal information leaks.
Determining intent is crucial in these cases, according to Ciaran McEvoy, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Central California.
He expounded on the law’s restrictions, clarifying that it outlaws personal information releases meant to threaten or incite violence.
In the context of the California indictment, the allegations suggest the suspects live-streamed their confrontation with an ICE agent while en route to his home, openly sharing his address and urging others to ‘come on down.’
Legal experts expressed doubts about the viability of the current case, highlighting the potential loophole in proving that merely identifying an address equates to inciting unlawful behavior.
“Did they encourage other people to vandalize the house, target the house, make harassing phone calls?” asked David Hudson, an associate professor of law.
“That’s the part that I haven’t seen.”
On the other hand, it is still possible for Oregon federal prosecutors to construct a case that could elaborate further on existing doxing allegations based on tips received by ICE.
At least one protester in Portland has disapproved of the distribution of personal information related to a Washington-based ICE agent, as noted in correspondence shared with Noem’s office.
“I don’t approve of anything Trump is doing in regard to immigration, but I don’t approve of this kind of thing,” the note read, “and I felt it was the right thing to do to let you know.”
image source from：oregonlive
