Maybe see if she can get Trump to “defame” her.
Never forget that “Qualified Immunity” was created out of thin air by the supreme Court and it should be ABOLISHED
As opposed to selling print subscriptions, advertisements both online and in print, and clicks on a "mainstream" news website? Or ads on a Youtube video? There is no material difference on this question of "benefit". News gathering and dissemination is not a non-profit enterprise. They get a benefit.
Good for her for exposing a law that never should have been on the books! (Even if she had no idea she was doing so.)
Our system should be the opposite of qualified immunity as all gov ultimately operates behind the barrel of a gun. They should be held to nearly impossibly high standards and the punishment for misbehaving government agents should devastate their entire lives.
Based on her business made, it appears she is more of an ‘influencer”.
That said, what possible reason could there be for criminalizing the publication of facts?
The ruling should not hinge on the term “journalist”.
The First Amendment is for all of us.
The judges who ruled against her did so for the obvious purpose of limiting the power of citizen journalists while amplifying that of the mainstream.
The police are their own worst enemy.
This ruling brings contempt upon the court; the Laredo police actions bring contempt upon the entire ‘profession’ of policing.
I’m sure these fascist cops and the bozo judge would’ve had no problem arresting Thomas Paine for writing “Common Sense.”
That county needs a constitutional sheriff to correct the gestapo cops and corrupt judge.
I have always been of the opinion that every citizen is a journalist. I do remember my days of being a card carrying radio news reporter. That card allowed special priveledges and entry to areas not always accessible to the public.
As for naming of victims of crimes or accidents. There is no law that I know of that one has to wait until next of kin is notified. It was always done out of “kindness” Vicitms of rape or sexual assualt were hidden behind a veil to protect their reputation. Even though a woman was a victim, there were always some in society that believed that she must had “had it coming” for one stupid reason or another.
While I feel that there is no need for laws to protect victims identities, etc, I do believe that the tradition of with holding the names of victims of certain assulats as well as the names of the deceased until their families can be notified. Society needs a certain sense of decorum—
The fenceline:
“violating an obscure Texas law, § 39.06(c), that prohibits soliciting ‘nonpublic information’ if done ‘with intent to obtain a benefit.’”
On the other side, is Google and many others, that “collect” - if you somehow agree to their Terms of Service.
Whether soliciting or collecting, the purpose of the law, is that your non-public (ie private) info, ought not be taken for their (solicitor’s or Google’s) benefit - without your being aware and approving.