This paper explains that the Oregon Supreme Court lately endorsed a
disciplinary damage verdict for trespass stemming from
an ecological
remonstration. The author points out that, even though the law, at present, authorizes
disciplinary indemnity for trespass, this memorandum makes a case that an instruction, which permits the adjudicators to reflect on reasons and viewpoints in measuring disciplinary damages for civil disobedience, breaches both the United States and Oregon Constitutions. The paper concludes that a jury instruction, which permits defendants' motivations to be a factor in measuring disciplinary damages for civil disobedience, is impermissible under both constitutional necessities; furthermore, the First Amendment is suppose to be interpreted to offer respite for civil disobedience and disciplinary damages and ought not to be allowed in this area. Table of Contents Introduction Summary of the Case Questions Presented Short Answer Discussion