Thread by @billybinion

This is journalist Priscilla Villarreal. A few years back, police in TX arrested her—because her work is often critical of them.

Last week, a federal court said those cops didn't necessarily violate her rights. Everyone got qualified immunity.

That should concern you. A thread.

Priscilla lives in Laredo, TX, where she's amassed a huge Facebook following.

Her work often exposes police abuse, which angered some in law enforcement. So they set about trying to punish her.

But free speech is, uh, pretty important here. So they had to get creative. /2

In 2017, police launched a monthslong criminal investigation into Priscilla for her journalism.

They subpoenaed several people's phone records.

And then they charged her with breaking an obscure law that had never before been used. Which is when things went off the rails. /3

Police said Priscilla broke a law that criminalizes asking for "nonpublic" info if the seeker stands to "benefit."

Translation: Priscilla called the cops to confirm some info for 2 of her scoops. A cop confirmed the info.

And then police arrested her for publishing it. /4

That someone was arrested in the US for the crime of doing journalism is egregious. This isn't Russia.

But a court concluding that arrest wasn't necessarily a violation of her rights is just pitiful. It should worry anyone who cares about free speech. /5 reason.com/2024/01/30/she…

In ruling against her, the 5th Circuit said Priscilla plausibly broke the law because she stood to "benefit" from her work by...getting followers.

Uh, that's bonkers. Everyone in media "benefits" in some way: a salary, followers, whatever. Reporting the news isn't a crime. /6

But what's most ludicrous about the ruling is the assertion that we can't expect reasonable police officers to know that jailing someone for reporting is a violation of the First Amendment.

We hold the most powerful people to the lowest standard. /7 reason.com/2024/01/30/she…

Priscilla is an independent reporter. The court implies that makes her less "legitimate." Wrong.

There is no license to report news. She's not a second-class citizen because she's not on a payroll.

And she has the right to speak her mind, no matter how much some may hate it. /8

There's a sliver of good news here: Groups from all across the spectrum—from the conservative @ADFLegal, to the libertarian @CatoInstitute, to the progressive @MyConstitution—urged the court to rule in favor of Priscilla.

As it should be. Because free speech isn't partisan. /9

Priscilla's staunchest defender was Judge James Ho, who is no progressive. Freedom of speech means people can "question or criticize" officials "without fear of imprisonment," he wrote in dissent.

Yes. You can hate what Priscilla has to say. But she has the right to say it. /end