zlacker

[return to "Police stage ‘chilling’ raid on Marion County newspaper"]
1. backen+a5[view] [source] 2023-08-12 02:20:07
>>_delir+(OP)
Am I missing something? There's no [federal] shield law protecting journalists in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_Stat...

"There is no federal shield law and state shield laws vary in scope."

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1241/shield-law...

"There is no federal shield law"

Not even former or sitting presidents are protected.

◧◩
2. fnordp+H5[view] [source] 2023-08-12 02:25:20
>>backen+a5
Linked in the original the article:

> The search warrant, signed by Marion County District Court Magistrate Judge Laura Viar, appears to violate federal law* that provides protections against searching and seizing materials from journalists. The law requires law enforcement to subpoena materials instead. Viar didn’t respond to a request to comment for this story or explain why she would authorize a potentially illegal raid.

* https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa

◧◩◪
3. backen+h6[view] [source] 2023-08-12 02:31:25
>>fnordp+H5
> appears to violate federal law

It can appear as a can of tomatoes being consumed by Andy Warhol himself. It doesn't change the fact there are no shield laws in Kansas or the US for journalists.

◧◩◪◨
4. faster+77[view] [source] 2023-08-12 02:39:46
>>backen+h6
From the linked Cornell article:

>...it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication

... followed by a bunch of caveats about cases in which it is acceptable to seize documents. I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds to me like a federal law protecting journalists. Whether or not it was violated in this case remains to be seen.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. s1arti+f9[view] [source] 2023-08-12 03:01:37
>>faster+77
You cut off the first and most important caveat. Police can search and size if they think the journalist committed a crime, just not for 3rd party investigations.

>this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any government officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such materials, if— (1)there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate

This is obviously relevant as the police allege the journalist committed a crime, specifically identify theft.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. mlyle+4I1[view] [source] 2023-08-12 17:54:35
>>s1arti+f9
"to which the materials relate" still is a problem if you seize everything that a newspaper has in response to one bit of reporting that you think might have violated a law.

This makes it hard for me to see this as anything other than a retaliatory overreach, especially given the context of the paper's track record of critical reporting on local government and law enforcement.

It's also worth noting that the article mentions a lawful source for the information in question (a tip from Newell's husband).

[go to top]