This is only a First Amendment case because of a federal law (rightly) protecting news outlets.This sucks. I hope both sides of the political aisle will agree that protecting a Free Press is essential to a democracy. And this is way beyond acceptable.https://t.co/sYAQrKp50T
— Brian J. Karem (@BrianKarem) August 13, 2023
The real constitutional issue here is the 4th amendment search without, according to reports, an affidavit being filed. That and the “evidence” for the search, and the seizure of so much property on the grounds of an “identity theft” allegation when the information the paper had (but didn’t publish) was public record.
The paper contacted the police department about the information they’d been given. Might the police more reasonably made an appointment to review that information?
And what does this have to do with the police chief dragging allegations of sexual abuse from his prior job which he hadn’t disclosed as the reason he lost that job. The newspaper had that story, too, but hadn’t published it, either.
Any even First Amendment adjacent issues here are entirely overshadowed by the 4th amendment issues.
Adding:
This gets it right:
The law provides protection to media based in the First Amendment, but as this letter points out, the primary issues here are matters if search and seizure.Our response to the outrageous police raid of a small-town newspaper https://t.co/juNWu3l6LJ pic.twitter.com/Pn8OGg27Hi
— JamesVGrimaldi (@JamesVGrimaldi) August 13, 2023
That’s a very BIG problem.‘’Meyer tried to obtain a probable cause affidavit that would support the search warrant, he said, but the judge who issued the search warrant responded in a letter there was no such probable cause warrant in her office’’. ☝️ https://t.co/vl86P7XrsN
— Dan Mangan (@_DanMangan) August 13, 2023
No comments:
Post a Comment