4 ms·

I thought this was going to be a clickbait headline blown way out of proportion. But looking at the details: > In April 2017, Villarreal, who reports near the

I thought this was going to be a clickbait headline blown way out of proportion. But looking at the details: > In April 2017, Villarreal, who reports near the U.S.-Mexico border, broke a story about a Border Patrol agent who committed suicide. A month later, she released the surname of a family involved in a fatal car accident. The agency that confirmed both pieces of information: the Laredo Police Department. The agency that would bring felony charges against her six months later for those acts of journalism: the Laredo Police Department. > At the core of Villarreal's misfortune is a Texas law that allows the state to prosecute someone who obtains nonpublic information from a government official if he or she does so "with intent to obtain a benefit." Villarreal operates her popular news-sharing operation on Facebook, where her page, Lagordiloca News, has amassed 200,000 followers as of this writing. > So to jail Villarreal, police alleged that she ran afoul of that law when she retrieved information from Laredo Police Department Officer Barbara Goodman and proceeded to publish those two aforementioned stories, because she potentially benefited by gaining more Facebook followers.

ahMath8 4y ago
encryptluks2 4y ago
The same state that will argue that companies like Facebook need regulations because they are not beneficial to society, is now going to try to argue that they are beneficial?
AdrianB1 4y ago
Any journalist is obtaining a benefit from publishing articles, they are paid for it. That means any whistleblower information that is published by a journalist is sending the journalist to prison, according to that law. That is BAD.
- tristan957 4y ago
  The Texas attorney general is facing whistleblower lawsuits, so I don't think Texas cares much about protecting whistleblowers. I say this as someone who lives in Texas. I could go on and on about Ken Paxton, but don't want to go too far off topic.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  The law itself as enforced in this case is clearly illegal, and no one is arguing against that.. Villarreal was not convicted. The question is whether she can sue the officers for even arresting her at all.
cortesoft 4y ago
The article is misleading, though. The case against Villarreal was quickly thrown out because she was clearly within her constitutional rights to do what she did. No one is arguing against that. There is no chance she goes to prison or is convicted for that. The issue is that she is trying to sue the officers for arresting her at all. Her argument is that the officers should have clearly known she had a constitutional right to do what she did, and arresting her for it is a violation of those rights. The courts have ruled previously that the officers can be sued if the thing they are arresting her for is “clearly settled” as being legally protected. If it isn’t, then the officers have immunity to being sued because they were acting on a law they believed to be legal. The question is whether her situation should have fallen under “clearly settled” law or not. I personally believe this situation seems like it is clearly settled enough to not grant the officers immunity, but it isn’t quite as legally clear as whether Villarreal was constitutionally protected (which i know sounds like a contradiction… how can it be clear she is protected but not clear the law was settled? The question is around the level of ‘settled’ that is required for each determination, I believe)

ahMath8 4y ago

encryptluks2 4y ago

The same state that will argue that companies like Facebook need regulations because they are not beneficial to society, is now going to try to argue that they are beneficial?

AdrianB1 4y ago

Any journalist is obtaining a benefit from publishing articles, they are paid for it. That means any whistleblower information that is published by a journalist is sending the journalist to prison, according to that law. That is BAD.

tristan957 4y ago
The Texas attorney general is facing whistleblower lawsuits, so I don't think Texas cares much about protecting whistleblowers. I say this as someone who lives in Texas. I could go on and on about Ken Paxton, but don't want to go too far off topic.
cortesoft 4y ago
The law itself as enforced in this case is clearly illegal, and no one is arguing against that.. Villarreal was not convicted. The question is whether she can sue the officers for even arresting her at all.

cortesoft 4y ago

The article is misleading, though. The case against Villarreal was quickly thrown out because she was clearly within her constitutional rights to do what she did. No one is arguing against that. There is no chance she goes to prison or is convicted for that. The issue is that she is trying to sue the officers for arresting her at all. Her argument is that the officers should have clearly known she had a constitutional right to do what she did, and arresting her for it is a violation of those rights. The courts have ruled previously that the officers can be sued if the thing they are arresting her for is “clearly settled” as being legally protected. If it isn’t, then the officers have immunity to being sued because they were acting on a law they believed to be legal. The question is whether her situation should have fallen under “clearly settled” law or not. I personally believe this situation seems like it is clearly settled enough to not grant the officers immunity, but it isn’t quite as legally clear as whether Villarreal was constitutionally protected (which i know sounds like a contradiction… how can it be clear she is protected but not clear the law was settled? The question is around the level of ‘settled’ that is required for each determination, I believe)