Police: Woman Arrested For Spreading Facebook Photos Of Undercover Cop

It is not against the law for a citizen or a journalist to out a CIA operative, it is illegal for the administration to do it. The police man was not outed by the woman he was outed by himself on facebook. She just republished it. Show me in the constitution were the government has the right to control our speech. Remember the Constitution says only what the government can do, if it is not in there then they can not do it. The constituion is a limit on gevernment not on the citizens.

What she did should be protected under the First Amendment.

Correct. After all, the First Amendment isn't about freely expressing ideas and opinions - it's about retaliation against enemies.

Similar to the reason why we have courts of law - not for silly nonsense like justice, but so that they can be flooded with nuisance lawsuits.

Respecting the issue whether the officer outed himself or he was outed by the accused, the article says only:

"Texas woman has been arrested after being accused of posting Facebook photos of an undercover policeman who testified against her friend in court."

"Mesquite police arrested Melissa Walthall, 30, for allegedly posting the photo of the officer, who authorities say recently testified in a drug case against her friend. Her Facebook post identified the person as an undercover officer, according to a federal affidavit."

This can be read either way. I think the most likely reading is that the officer maintained a Facebook page which may or may not have presented himself in the likeness in which he appeared while undercover. If it did not then the outing was clear. If the officer himself posted an image which resembled his appearance while undercover, the issue remains whether a private citizen has the right to identify an undercover policeman as being undercover. He presumably did not out himself as an undercover policeman, she did.

As to the notion that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution deprives Congress or even a state from making any law affecting the freedom of speech, that is not now and never was the law of the Constitution since the beginning.

It is clear that the law has the power to restrict speech of all kinds and all kinds of situations. I am in the Hugo Black school on the First Amendment but even I recognize the government has a right to keep secrets. I think we were right, for example, to execute the Rosenbergs. No one has a right to claim free speech and then proceed to slander another person without civil consequences.

As to the notion that the First Amendment is a limitation on the government and not on private citizens, that is a proposition which I readily agree. So the issue becomes whether the state or municipality has the power (in the place of Congress) to enact legislation prohibiting the outing of undercover agents. I believe it does and that power is not limited by the First Amendment. If the law is not limited by the First Amendment then the inquiry becomes whether there is a reasonable relationship to a permissible goal, and the answer to that is obviously yes, protecting undercover officers is a reasonable extension of the police power. So the law is constitutional.

However, in this case the article generates confusion:

Stedham, 26, has been charged with retaliation . (emphasis supplied)

I do not know what "retaliation" means, I have never heard of such a crime. One would have to examine the ordinance or statute to discover what it means. But I presume, as I have said, that it is a constitutional law apart from the issue of free speech.

“the First Amendment isn’t about freely expressing ideas and opinions”

This incident has nothing to do with free speech. There is no “idea or opinion”, expressed. Only the outing of an undercover agent in retaliation for his doing his job.

Read my post more carefully.

From a CNET article

It seems that the undercover cop might have used his real name in court. In any case, Welthall's friend reportedly found him on Facebook and Welthall allegedly posted the photo and spread it in a manner, presumably, that wasn't entirely flattering.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57532713-71/facebook-photos-of-undercover-cop-get-woman-arrested/

As far a the limits on the government that is clear. First the Constitution limits government it sets the limits and the duties and responsibilities it is not a limit on the citizens it is a limit on government. Liberals think that the Constitution is a limit on citizens and that we must go to the government to for permission that is not how the country was set up. The 1st amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. make no law pretty straight forward.

As far a retaliation the government always wants to make up new ways to control the citizens. We should not give in.

As far a the limits on the government that is clear. First the Constitution limits government it sets the limits and the duties and responsibilities it is not a limit on the citizens it is a limit on government.

Quite true.

Therefore the relevant question now becomes did the government pass a law prohibiting this "outing" and if so does the First Amendment put a limit on the power of the government to do so? I do not believe that it does, other factors being equal or put aside as irrelevant to our discussion.

So what about folks taking pictures, or video, of the police arresting someone? Is that “ok”? is that “legal”? If you’re a public servant, you should expect to get pictures and/or video of you discharging YOUR PUBLIC DUTY.

How is it ok for the police to video/picture me running a red light (not that I have) in public, but me taken video/pictures of them giving me a ticket is not ok?

Therefore the relevant question now becomes did the government pass a law prohibiting this "outing" and if so does the First Amendment put a limit on the power of the government to do so? I do not believe that it does, other factors being equal or put aside as irrelevant to our discussion.

As I stated earlier the 1st Amendment is clear “Congress shall make no law”

It is simple the government can try for the theft of information; stealing classified documents or a listing of actual undercover agents, etc., or the payment for the information. Publishing the info is not what they can charge you for, look at wikiLeaks no charges against Assange only against Manning. Same thing with the reporter, Novak, who reported about Plame he was not charged.

We cannot allow the government to exceed the limits placed upon it. Allowing the government to exceed those limits is why we have so many problems now.

“For the record, I oppose outing undercover agents and I approve of the prosecution of people who do so.”

For the record, I oppose the use of secret police. Anything the government does they do in our name and nothing of the sort should be kept secret from us. We are their EMPLOYERS.

There simply isn’t anything that needs to be done in secret to investigate and prosecute criminals. It is simply a lazy way out of doing their jobs.

That being said, the fault is not in the stars or in social media as this article implies but in this destructive war on drugs that has more and more become a war on ourselves.

I think we are in danger of conflating what the words of the Constitution say with what the Supreme Court today says it means because they are two very different things. The plain language of the First Amendment is, "Congress shall make no law…." However, as far back as the Alien and Sedition laws there have been limits imposed on free speech and limits imposed on newspapers which publish speech of their own or speech of others, and the tension about whether or not the Supreme Court will tolerate a law that Congress shall make, or not make, is everlasting.

When it comes to political speech, I am a strong supporter of a broad that is to say a literal interpretation of the words. When it comes to national security I am quite willing, indeed even eager, to impose certain limits on free speech. As I indicated by the quotation above, if the purpose of the restriction of free speech is not compelling then I am generally opposed to the restriction. I have come to believe that the war on drugs is a losing proposition which is increasingly intruding on our liberties therefore I am intolerant of intrusions such as government under cover agents to prosecute that war.

The liberty of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment. The right of privacy is found in several other parts of the Constitution although not explicitly by name. I am not particularly impressed by the desire of the government to spy on people, or more precisely, to infiltrate the drug culture to prosecute the war on drugs. On the other hand, I am quite eager in the era of Islamist terrorism, terrorists who are fanatical, who are suicidal, who might well get their hands on weapons of mass destruction to authorize the government to infiltrate mosques, just as they have the Ku Klux Klan, to keep an eye on potential mass murderers.

This is the nuclear age and I am far more concerned about the lives of millions of people that I am about the privacy of Muslims who in my judgment have done little to police their own ranks.

In other words, there has never been an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment which prevails, there has never been an absolutist interpretation of the supposed right of privacy which prevails, there has always been a balancing of competing values. It does not advance our understanding to proclaim what the Constitution means without conceding that those whom we have charged with interpreting that document, the courts, may well have ruled otherwise.

Therefore, we can say that there is an absolute right to free speech but tell that to the judge after you have been arrested for threatening the life of the president. You can say that there is a right to privacy but tell that to the judge after you are arrested for plotting to blow up the Pentagon when you have been recorded speaking to an undercover agent.

We have remedies at the polling booth and we have remedies of the defense of entrapment if the government action becomes egregious. Meanwhile, we are going to proceed as we always have, interpreting these things on a case-by-case basis, weighing the compelling government interest against the rights of the individual which the Constitution enshrined as prohibitions against the government, but, despite the actual words have never been interpreted to be absolute in all cases.

Well of course the Constitution and the Supreme Court say two different things. The SC just like the rest of government is overstepping its bounds and screwing over the citizens of this country.

The government has always tried to overstep its bounds, we the people must push it back to where it should be. The government does not believe in nor does it support the Constitution. We must stand up for our rights and stop the government over reach. We must tell our representative that they need to follow the constitution, as the tea party movement is trying to do.

Unfortunately too many people in this country are now on the government gravy train and could not careless for freedom and liberty. Even some Freepers do not care, the one important place that the citizens can make a direct impact on our situation, jury duty, they will not participate. You here it over and over, the only people on a jury are those who are not smart enough to get out of it. Juries are where we can negate bad laws and bad court rulings. The mind set of both the government and the people must be changed.

Security for the country will not be achieved by police going undercover and then complaining that somebody reposts their pictures on facebook. Presently the balance for the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th Amendments all rests with the government. The government has overstepped its bounds on every one of these amendments and we are not more secure. As was stated by I believe Ben Franklin “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” We now have neither security nor liberty; we are slaves to the government.