reason.com Open in urlscan Pro
75.2.24.81  Public Scan

URL: https://reason.com/2022/11/04/this-court-case-could-make-it-a-crime-to-be-a-journalist-in-texas/
Submission: On February 13 via manual from US — Scanned from US

Form analysis 3 forms found in the DOM

GET https://reason.com/

<form role="search" method="get" class="search-form" action="https://reason.com/">
  <label>
    <span class="screen-reader-text">Search for:</span>
    <input type="search" class="search-field" placeholder="Search …" value="" name="s">
  </label>
  <input type="submit" class="search-submit" value="Search">
</form>

POST

<form method="post" id="gform_0" class="recaptcha-v3-initialized"><input type="hidden" name="login_redirect" value="/2022/11/04/this-court-case-could-make-it-a-crime-to-be-a-journalist-in-texas/">
  <div class="gform_heading">
    <h3 class="gform_title">Login Form</h3>
  </div>
  <div class="gform_body">
    <div id="gform_fields_login" class="gform_fields top_label">
      <div id="field_0_1" class="gfield gfield--type-text gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_1"><label class="gfield_label gform-field-label"
          for="input_1">Username<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
        <div class="ginput_container ginput_container_text"><input name="input_1" id="input_1" type="text" value="" class="" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false"> </div>
      </div>
      <div id="field_0_2" class="gfield gfield--type-text gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_2"><label class="gfield_label gform-field-label"
          for="input_2">Password<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
        <div class="ginput_container ginput_container_text"><input name="input_2" id="input_2" type="password" value="" class="" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false"> </div>
      </div>
      <div id="field_0_3" class="gfield gfield--type-remember_me field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below hidden_label gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_3"><label
          class="gfield_label gform-field-label screen-reader-text gfield_label_before_complex"></label>
        <div class="ginput_container ginput_container_checkbox">
          <div class="gfield_checkbox" id="input_3">
            <div class="gchoice gchoice_3">
              <input class="gfield-choice-input" name="input_3.1" type="checkbox" value="1" id="choice_3">
              <label for="choice_3" id="label_3">Remember Me</label>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="gform_footer top_label"> <button type="submit" id="gform_submit_button_0" class="gform_button button"
      onclick="if(window[&quot;gf_submitting_0&quot;]){return false;}  if( !jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;)[0].checkValidity || jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;)[0].checkValidity()){window[&quot;gf_submitting_0&quot;]=true;}  "
      onkeypress="if( event.keyCode == 13 ){ if(window[&quot;gf_submitting_0&quot;]){return false;} if( !jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;)[0].checkValidity || jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;)[0].checkValidity()){window[&quot;gf_submitting_0&quot;]=true;}  jQuery(&quot;#gform_0&quot;).trigger(&quot;submit&quot;,[true]); }">Login</button>
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="is_submit_0" value="1">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_submit" value="0">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_unique_id" value="">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="state_0" value="WyJbXSIsIjVmZDk0MDRiMTc0NTYwODJmYTIwNGZlZDYxN2ViYzJjIl0=">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_target_page_number_0" id="gform_target_page_number_0" value="0">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_source_page_number_0" id="gform_source_page_number_0" value="1">
    <input type="hidden" name="gform_field_values" value="">
  </div>
</form>

POST /2022/11/04/this-court-case-could-make-it-a-crime-to-be-a-journalist-in-texas/#gf_17

<form method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data" target="gform_ajax_frame_17" id="gform_17" class="puprf-signup-widget recaptcha-v3-initialized" action="/2022/11/04/this-court-case-could-make-it-a-crime-to-be-a-journalist-in-texas/#gf_17"
  data-formid="17" novalidate="">
  <div class="gf_invisible ginput_recaptchav3" data-sitekey="6LeMnkUaAAAAALL8T1-XAyB7vxpOeTExu6KwR48-" data-tabindex="0"><input id="input_9ae663dc72ef42b46f2cf3a53ec042e1" class="gfield_recaptcha_response" type="hidden"
      name="input_9ae663dc72ef42b46f2cf3a53ec042e1" value=""></div>
  <div class="gform-body gform_body">
    <div id="gform_fields_17" class="gform_fields top_label form_sublabel_below description_below">
      <div id="field_17_1" class="gfield gfield--type-email gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below hidden_label gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_17_1"><label
          class="gfield_label gform-field-label" for="input_17_1">Email<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
        <div class="ginput_container ginput_container_email">
          <input name="input_1" id="input_17_1" type="email" value="" class="large" placeholder="Email Address" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false">
        </div>
      </div>
      <div id="field_17_2" class="gfield gfield--type-honeypot gform_validation_container field_sublabel_below gfield--has-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_17_2"><label
          class="gfield_label gform-field-label" for="input_17_2">Comments</label>
        <div class="ginput_container"><input name="input_2" id="input_17_2" type="text" value="" autocomplete="new-password"></div>
        <div class="gfield_description" id="gfield_description_17_2">This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.</div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="gform_footer top_label"> <button type="submit" id="gform_submit_button_17" class="gform_button button"
      onclick="if(window[&quot;gf_submitting_17&quot;]){return false;}  if( !jQuery(&quot;#gform_17&quot;)[0].checkValidity || jQuery(&quot;#gform_17&quot;)[0].checkValidity()){window[&quot;gf_submitting_17&quot;]=true;}  "
      onkeypress="if( event.keyCode == 13 ){ if(window[&quot;gf_submitting_17&quot;]){return false;} if( !jQuery(&quot;#gform_17&quot;)[0].checkValidity || jQuery(&quot;#gform_17&quot;)[0].checkValidity()){window[&quot;gf_submitting_17&quot;]=true;}  jQuery(&quot;#gform_17&quot;).trigger(&quot;submit&quot;,[true]); }">Submit</button>
    <input type="hidden" name="gform_ajax" value="form_id=17&amp;title=&amp;description=1&amp;tabindex=0&amp;theme=data-form-theme='gravity-theme'">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="is_submit_17" value="1">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_submit" value="17">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_unique_id" value="">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="state_17" value="WyJbXSIsIjVmZDk0MDRiMTc0NTYwODJmYTIwNGZlZDYxN2ViYzJjIl0=">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_target_page_number_17" id="gform_target_page_number_17" value="0">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_source_page_number_17" id="gform_source_page_number_17" value="1">
    <input type="hidden" name="gform_field_values" value="">
  </div>
  <p style="display: none !important;" class="akismet-fields-container" data-prefix="ak_"><label>Δ<textarea name="ak_hp_textarea" cols="45" rows="8" maxlength="100"></textarea></label><input type="hidden" id="ak_js_1" name="ak_js"
      value="1707793302574">
    <script>
      document.getElementById("ak_js_1").setAttribute("value", (new Date()).getTime());
    </script>
  </p>
</form>

Text Content

 * Latest
 * Magazine
   * Current Issue
   * Archives
   * Subscribe
   * Crossword
 * Video
 * Podcasts
   * All Shows
   * The Reason Roundtable
   * The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
   * The Soho Forum Debates
   * Just Asking Questions
   * The Best of Reason Magazine
   * Why We Can't Have Nice Things
 * Volokh
 * Newsletters
 * Donate
   * Donate Online
   * Donate Crypto
   * Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
   * Torchbearer Society
   * Planned Giving
 * Subscribe
   * Print/Digital Subscriptions
   * Gift Subscriptions

Search for:


LOGIN FORM

Username(Required)

Password(Required)

Remember Me
Login
Create new account
Forgot password


Free Speech


THIS COURT CASE COULD MAKE IT A CRIME TO BE A JOURNALIST IN TEXAS


PRISCILLA VILLARREAL FOUND HERSELF IN A JAIL CELL FOR PUBLISHING TWO ROUTINE
STORIES. A FEDERAL COURT STILL CAN'T DECIDE WHAT TO DO ABOUT THAT.

Billy Binion | 11.4.2022 10:03 AM

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly
versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Priscilla Villarreal (Saenz Photography; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th
Circuit)

It has been five years since police in Laredo, Texas, mocked and jeered at
Priscilla Villarreal, a local journalist often critical of cops, as she stood in
the Webb County Jail while they booked her on felony charges. Her crime: asking
the government questions.

That may seem like a relatively obvious violation of the First Amendment. Yet
perhaps more fraught is that, after all this time, the federal courts have still
not been able to reach a consensus on that question. Over the years, judges in
the 5th Circuit have ping-ponged back and forth over whether jailing a
journalist for doing journalism does, in fact, plainly infringe on her free
speech rights.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas awarded those
officers qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that allows state and local
government officials to violate your constitutional rights without having to
face federal civil suits if that violation has not been "clearly established" in
case law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit forcefully overturned
that: "If [this] is not an obvious violation of the Constitution, it's hard to
imagine what would be," wrote Judge James C. Ho.

Powered By

00:00/01:24
10 Sec


Two Israeli hostages freed as dozens in Gaza killed during IDF operation, AP
explains




Next
Stay





Last week, the full spate of judges on the 5th Circuit voted to rehear the case
in a rare move that signals some discontent with Ho's majority conclusion. Put
differently, it's not looking good for Villarreal, nor for any journalist in the
5th Circuit who would like to do their job without fear of going to jail for it.

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. Missing from that analysis is that
every journalist, reporter, or media pundit has an "intent to benefit" when she
or he publishes a story, whether it is to attract viewers, readers, or
subscribers. Soliciting information from government officials—who, as
Villarreal's case exemplifies, sometimes feed reporters information—is called a
"scoop," and it's not new.

Yet it was an argument that, in some sense, resonated with Judge Priscilla
Richman, the chief jurist on the 5th Circuit, who almost certainly voted in
favor of reconsidering the court's ruling. "In fact, Villareal's [sic] Complaint
says that she 'sometimes enjoys a free meal from appreciative readers, . . .
occasionally receives fees for promoting a local business [and] has used her
Facebook page [where all of her reporting is published] to ask for donations for
new equipment necessary to continue her citizen journalism efforts," she wrote
in August, rebuking Ho's conclusion. "With great respect, the majority opinion
is off base in holding that no reasonably competent officer could objectively
have thought that Villareal [sic] obtained information from her back-door source
within the Laredo Police Department with an 'intent to benefit.'"



Such an interpretation would render the media industry an illegal operation, and
everyone who participates—whether they be conservative, liberal, far-left,
far-right, or anything in-between—criminals. "Other journalists are paid full
salaries by their media outlets," writes Ho. Can confirm. Is that somehow less
consequential than receiving free lunch or getting a new spike of followers on a
social media platform (which is something that many journalists employed full
time also set out to do)? "In sum, it is a crime to be a journalist in Texas,
thanks to the dissent's reading of § 39.06(c)," Ho adds. 

Debates around free speech are often polarized along predictable partisan lines.
More specifically, they're often polarized by the content espoused. It's an easy
task to support the idea of free speech when you enjoy what's being said. But
the First Amendment does not pertain solely to popular speech, which, by nature
of common sense, needs considerably less protection than the content deemed
unpopular by the majority.

"It's not about just one person, it's not about just one case," says J.T.
Morris, a senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
(FIRE), which is representing Villarreal. "It's about the First Amendment rights
of all citizens to ask their public officials questions."

This appears to be something Judge Ho understands. Appointed by President Donald
Trump, he has drawn headlines in recent weeks for his critiques of cancel
culture at Yale Law School, where left-leaning students have developed a
reputation for petulantly shouting down those with differing views. In our
current partisan landscape, then, Villarreal might seem like an odd character
for Ho to sympathize with; it's safe to say she would more likely qualify as a
left-leaning hero than a right-leaning one. The journalist doggedly covers law
enforcement with profanity-laced commentary: She once published a video of an
officer choking someone at a traffic stop, and railed at a district attorney who
dropped criminal charges against someone for animal abuse—a pattern which
perhaps explains why police were eager to use the force of the law against her,
the first time they ever invoked the statute in question.



But to make an about-face based on the content fundamentally confuses the
meaning of free speech. Put differently, if you're upset that some students at
Yale Law School are not mature enough to engage with those who think
differently, or that social media vigilantes unfairly derail careers for
WrongThink, then so too should you care that a woman in small-town Texas spent
time in jail for promoting a message that might make you uncomfortable.

It's a problem of principle, and it's one that may also pervade the judiciary.
"It should go without saying that forcing a public school student to embrace a
particular political view serves no legitimate pedagogical function and is
forbidden by the First Amendment," Ho wrote in Oliver v. Arnold last year. The
case, which went under the radar, pertained to a conservative teacher who
discriminated against a liberal student, temporarily turning the discussion on
bias in education on its head. That student, Mari Leigh Oliver, won—by the skin
of her teeth. Seven judges wanted to rehear the case, suggesting they disagreed
with the ruling, while the remaining 10 declined.

Addressing some of the judges who would side against Oliver, Ho wrote that "it's
unclear why they think [other] claims should succeed, and only Oliver's should
lose." After all, the roles are typically reversed; conservatives are frequently
the ones outweighed in academic settings. But if you only apply your principles
when they suit you—if you only stand against the illiberal Yale students and not
for the Villarreals or the Olivers—then you are sure to eventually find yourself
on the losing end. And then what?

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and
trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

Email(Required)

Comments

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Submit

Δ

NEXT: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Claims Elon Musk Is Targeting Her Twitter Account

Billy Binion is an associate editor at Reason.

Free SpeechCriminal JusticeFirst
AmendmentMediaJournalismTexasCrimeJailPolicePolice AbuseGovernmentCourtsFederal
CourtsFederal governmentQualified ImmunityAccountabilityCivil LibertiesBorder
patrolBorder zoneSocial MediaFacebookLaw & GovernmentLaw enforcementLegal
ThinkingnewsNews & CriticismNewspapersTelevisionInvestigative
JournalismFoodPartisanshipDonald TrumpCancel CultureProsecutorsAnimalsAnimal
RightsEducationFoundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly
versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Show Comments (138)


LATEST

SCOTUS IS TROUBLED BY THE CLAIM THAT STATES CAN DISQUALIFY TRUMP FROM THE
ELECTION AS AN INSURRECTIONIST

Jacob Sullum | 2.12.2024 1:35 PM

PROTECT ACT COULD REQUIRE REMOVAL OF ALL EXISTING PORN ONLINE

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 2.12.2024 12:00 PM

BIDEN'S BIZARRE 'SHRINKFLATION' NONSENSE

Eric Boehm | 2.12.2024 11:15 AM

DELINQUENT COUNTRIES

Liz Wolfe | 2.12.2024 9:30 AM

JOE BIDEN'S NO GOOD, VERY BAD DAY

J.D. Tuccille | 2.12.2024 7:00 AM






RECOMMENDED

COURT: PRISCILLA VILLARREAL’S ARREST FOR JOURNALISM NOT OBVIOUSLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL

A FEDERAL COURT WILL DECIDE IF IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL FOR JOURNALISTS TO ASK
QUESTIONS

THE 5TH CIRCUIT: CRIMINALIZING JOURNALISM IS NOT OBVIOUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL

THE RIGHT TO ASK GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS QUESTIONS

PRISCILLA VILLARREAL PREVAILS IN FIRST AMENDMENT, QUALIFIED IMMUNITY CASE


 * About
 * Browse Topics
 * Events
 * Staff
 * Jobs
 * Donate
 * Advertise
 * Subscribe
 * Contact
 * Media
 * Shop
 * Amazon

Reason FacebookReason TwitterReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeReason
ItunesReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of
Service apply.



Notifications