you're not exactly wrong. In my opinion this is a first amendment case. The supreme court created something called 'strict scrutiny' to analyze cases where oth

you're not exactly wrong. In my opinion this is a first amendment case. The supreme court created something called 'strict scrutiny' to analyze cases where other laws encroach on the first amendment. Under strict scrutiny, the government needs to prove a compelling state interest to restrict free speech. Does the state of oregon have a compelling interest in preventing this person from informing a state agency, via private correspondence, of a safety-related calibration issue in their traffic light system? If you think so, interested to hear your argument.