Texas...Actually Illegal To Ask Public Officials Questions If Answers Aren't Already Public

[Revoltingest]

A journalist asked the wrong question, & got arrested.
The case is heading to SCOTUS.
TX law in short.....
It's illegal to solicit info from a public servant if that info has not been made public.
Sounds like investigative reporting is illegal there.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Pogo]

A journalist asked the wrong question, & got arrested.
The case is heading to SCOTUS.
TX law in short.....
It's illegal to solicit info from a public servant if that info has not been made public.
Sounds like investigative reporting is illegal there.

MSN

www.msn.com

Not even sure how to respond to this except to remind MAGA's of Putin's arrests of journalists and ask whether they might just see some little parallel in their tiny minds.

Other than than disgust at Americans who have so lost their way.

 

[fantome profane]

describing her questions as "akin to incitement."

Incitement to what? Incitement to answer a question?

It is the job of a journalist to "incite" people to answer questions.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A journalist asked the wrong question, & got arrested.
The case is heading to SCOTUS.
TX law in short.....
It's illegal to solicit info from a public servant if that info has not been made public.
Sounds like investigative reporting is illegal there.

MSN

www.msn.com

That's what the courts are for , and besides this was way back in 2017 plus the case itself was dismissed by the state judiciary. There ya go. Justice served.

It's just a lawsuit post dismissal of the case over the arrest itself.

 

[Pogo]

That's what the courts are for , and besides this was way back in 2017 plus the case itself was dismissed by the state judiciary. There ya go. Justice served.

It's just a lawsuit post dismissal of the case over the arrest itself.

misdemeanor possession only still in some states.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A journalist asked the wrong question, & got arrested.
The case is heading to SCOTUS.
TX law in short.....
It's illegal to solicit info from a public servant if that info has not been made public.
Sounds like investigative reporting is illegal there.

MSN

www.msn.com

I'm just as Peeping Tom looking down from your norther border. I find myself unsurprised at much the Republicans will do. Kinda like finding the secret peep-hole in the fitness club shower -- after a while, you begin to realize they all look pretty much the same.

 

[HonestJoe]

A journalist asked the wrong question, & got arrested.

It's clearly more complicated than that, but proponents for either side are trying to present it as simple in their favour.

It seems there is a poorly worded law (which is hardly unique), which could render it unenforceable. The underlying question on principle of whether what this journalist did was legitimate, questionable or wrong depends on details that (somewhat ironically) don't seem to be public.

There will clearly be information that individual officials (especially police officers) shouldn't be sharing with anyone (and especially journalists), and certainly not via private messaging rather than formal lines of communication. Whether the information being sought is something the journalists should have known they weren't meant to know should be the basis of any guilt on their part.

It seems this is going through the correct process to resolve the situation, even if it is unfortunate that it has apparently required going all the way to the Supreme Courts.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's what the courts are for , and besides this was way back in 2017 plus the case itself was dismissed by the state judiciary. There ya go. Justice served.

It's just a lawsuit post dismissal of the case over the arrest itself.

The law is still on the books.
Cops can still arrest reporters for asking questions.
The case is headed to SCOTUS.

MSN

Your post seems awfully sanguine about such
an over-reach by government. Do you approve
of the law, see it as merely unenforceable, or
does the law not bother you?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's clearly more complicated than that, but proponents for either side are trying to present it as simple in their favour.

When I preceded my summary with "in short",
I certainly intended to set aside complications.
I expected the interested reader to peruse the
linked article for a fuller understanding.

MSN

www.msn.com

It seems there is a poorly worded law (which is hardly unique), which could render it unenforceable.

But nonetheless useful to authorities who want to
use the law mischievously to target personal foes.

The underlying question on principle of whether what this journalist did was legitimate, questionable or wrong depends on details that (somewhat ironically) don't seem to be public.

The larger issue is that asking questions
of officials could result in arrest & jail.
Can you imagine a chilling effect, given
all the corruption in government?

There will clearly be information that individual officials (especially police officers) shouldn't be sharing with anyone (and especially journalists), and certainly not via private messaging rather than formal lines of communication. Whether the information being sought is something the journalists should have known they weren't meant to know should be the basis of any guilt on their part.

If officials & cops are improperly divulging sensitive
information, wouldn't they be the criminals, rather
than the reporter asking for it? All they need to do
is say "No comment".
But that's government for ya....civilians are the ones
who go to jail. Not those who run government.

 

[Pogo]

It's clearly more complicated than that, but proponents for either side are trying to present it as simple in their favour.

It seems there is a poorly worded law (which is hardly unique), which could render it unenforceable. The underlying question on principle of whether what this journalist did was legitimate, questionable or wrong depends on details that (somewhat ironically) don't seem to be public.

There will clearly be information that individual officials (especially police officers) shouldn't be sharing with anyone (and especially journalists), and certainly not via private messaging rather than formal lines of communication. Whether the information being sought is something the journalists should have known they weren't meant to know should be the basis of any guilt on their part.

It seems this is going through the correct process to resolve the situation, even if it is unfortunate that it has apparently required going all the way to the Supreme Courts.

If you are speaking of current US law that is sufficiently poorly worded that it may require SC adjudication, then it might be useful to present some information for us to analyze or are we dealing with an example that would be more typical of current Russian law?

My reading of the OP article is that asking a question is soliciting? Would you like to **** me for %100 is in our prudish society is soliciting, but asking someone if they would provide information that they are not supposed too? Uh, that failure is normally considered to be on the information providers part.

What am I missing here. Another idiotic Texan attempt to make legal **** up? what actual principle is in question that needs SC clarification.

 

[Pogo]

When I preceded my summary with "in short",
I certainly intended to set aside complications.
I expected the interested reader to peruse the
linked article for a fuller understanding.

MSN

www.msn.com

But nonetheless useful to authorities who want to
use the law mischievously to target personal foes.

The larger issue is that asking questions
of officials could result in arrest & jail.
Can you imagine a chilling effect, given
all the corruption in government?

If officials & cops are improperly divulging sensitive
information, wouldn't they be the criminals, rather
than the reporter asking for it? All they need to do
is say "No comment".
But that's government for ya....civilians are the ones
who go to jail. Not those who run government.

Honest Yahoo, or is this one of the media specialists pointed out today that are variously former Trump advisers and Russian disinformation providers who took over an Australian website?
Will look further for the link,

 

[HonestJoe]

But nonetheless useful to authorities who want to
use the law mischievously to target personal foes.

I'd suggest that is giving authorities far too much credit. In the absence of any other evidence, I'll always suspect incompetence over conspiracy. The aggressive application of this law could well have been calculated in that manner, but that is why there are appeals processes and reviews of laws as written and implemented.

The larger issue is that asking questions
of officials could result in arrest & jail.

I think there are contexts where that could be appropriate though. If someone tries to convince, force or bribe an official to reveal information they know is rightfully secret or private, I think that should be recognised as wrong (certainly without any better reason than writing a more dramatic news story). The problem here is the technicalities of how far you need to go for a criminal offence to be committed and how that is defined and determined. It's an issue of detail, not principle. People want to make it about principle because they no the details won't entirely favour them and, ironically, because it makes for a more dramatic news story.

Can you imagine a chilling effect, given
all the corruption in government?

If you have such a fundamental distrust of government, this should be the least of your concerns. And wouldn't legal restrictions on releasing or sharing private or secret information, and specifically against convincing lower level officials to reveal it, be as much a protection from corrupt leaders as anything else?

If officials & cops are improperly divulging sensitive
information, wouldn't they be the criminals, rather
than the reporter asking for it? All they need to do
is say "No comment".

This is a common misrepresentation of legal or moral responsibility. It isn't ever a case of sharing a fixed level of guilt, each individual is responsible for their own actions, regardless of what anyone else did. Obviously officials shouldn't be releasing information in this way, and they should also be investigated and punished appropriately. None of that should make any difference to the offence of anyone knowingly soliciting that information from the officials though.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd suggest that is giving authorities far too much credit.

Too much credit to recognize that authorities
will mis-use laws out of personal animosity?
It's sweet that you're unaware of the evil that
lurks in the hearts of government minions.

In the absence of any other evidence, I'll always suspect incompetence over conspiracy.

Conspiracy now?
Pbbbbbbttttttt!!!!!!!

 

[HonestJoe]

Too much credit to recognize that authorities
will mis-use laws out of personal animosity?

No, too much credit to pre-plan the creation of poorly worded legislation decades ago so they could manufacture the arrest of a small-time journalist for seeking information about local crimes (that they weren't meant to have).

Conspiracy now?
Pbbbbbbttttttt!!!!!!!

Are you not suggesting people in power actively deciding to create and/or use the law to silence journalists (or at least one of them). That would be the literal definition of a conspiracy but I agree it is a ridiculous suggestion in the absence of any evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, too much credit to pre-plan the creation of poorly worded legislation decades ago so they could manufacture the arrest of a small-time journalist for seeking information about local crimes (that they weren't meant to have).

You imagine a long range fiendish plan.
I observe what they actually do, ie, mis-using
laws to wrongfully arrest people.
"Disturbing the peace" & "Loitering" are good
ones for arresting people cops dislike.

Are you not suggesting people in power actively deciding to create and/or use the law to silence journalists (or at least one of them).

No.
Did you infer that?

That would be the literal definition of a conspiracy but I agree it is a ridiculous suggestion in the absence of any evidence.

You're the one bringing up conspiracy theories.
I didn't. I don't. Although cops regularly conspire
to "get their story straight" when they want to
railroad innocent people.

 

[HonestJoe]

I observe what they actually do, ie, mis-using
laws to wrongfully arrest people.

Sure, but it hasn't been established that this was a wrongful arrest, and even if it was, that doesn't prove the law was intentionally misused since it could have been legitimately considered that her actions were wrong.

No.
Did you infer that?

Yes, when you said the poorly constructed law could be "useful to authorities who want to use the law mischievously to target personal foes.". Not a grand conspiracy but as long as it involved multiple people acting intentionally, it would be the literal definition of the term.

You're the one bringing up conspiracy theories.

I think you did, you just don't use that term, since it more commonly applies to conspiracies that aren't true and, as your comments about police show, you assume they are true in this kind of context. You're assuming bad intentions "mischievously" applying a bad law and I'm suggesting it is at least as possible to be relatively good intentions ineffectively applying a bad law.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, but it hasn't been established that this was a wrongful arrest, and even if it was, that doesn't prove the law was intentionally misused since it could have been legitimately considered that her actions were wrong.

Yes, when you said the poorly constructed law could be "useful to authorities who want to use the law mischievously to target personal foes.". Not a grand conspiracy but as long as it involved multiple people acting intentionally, it would be the literal definition of the term.

I think you did, you just don't use that term, since it more commonly applies to conspiracies that aren't true and, as your comments about police show, you assume they are true in this kind of context. You're assuming bad intentions "mischievously" applying a bad law and I'm suggesting it is at least as possible to be relatively good intentions ineffectively applying a bad law.

We must agree to disagree.