If I understand the article correctly, there are levels to this situation which make the "crime to be a journalist" situation a little complex, and worth unpacking.
It doesn't sound as if the Texas law under which Villarreal was initially charged can be used any longer, so the "crime to be a journalist" claim isn't that a journalist has or can be convicted under this particular law.
Rather, the contention is over whether the police have qualified immunity, and whether a civil case can be brought against them, which hinges on whether violations of ones rights are clearly established by case law. The "crime to be journalist" claim applies in the lesser sense that cops can investigate, charge, detain, harass a journalist with no consequences.
> The charges were eventually dismissed as baseless and the law ruled unconstitutionally vague. But those officers were given qualified immunity for violating her First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and 14th Amendment rights when they arrested and detained her, thus preventing her from holding them accountable in civil court.
But, bearing in mind that these judges have been speaking about whether the Laredo police have qualified immunity concerning their 2017 actions, I think the key question is what is the future impact of the Texas law having been found unconstitutional -- in particular does it change what constitutes a clearly established violation? I.e. even if Villarreal cannot sue the Laredo police for their actions in 2017, in 2022 when police know this statute is bad, can they still investigate/charge journalists with impunity?
those officers were given qualified immunity for violating her First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and 14th Amendment rights when they arrested and detained her, thus preventing her from holding them accountable in civil court.
In the doctrine of qualified immunity, this means she must go after the state for these violations of her rights?
It doesn't sound as if the Texas law under which Villarreal was initially charged can be used any longer, so the "crime to be a journalist" claim isn't that a journalist has or can be convicted under this particular law.
Rather, the contention is over whether the police have qualified immunity, and whether a civil case can be brought against them, which hinges on whether violations of ones rights are clearly established by case law. The "crime to be journalist" claim applies in the lesser sense that cops can investigate, charge, detain, harass a journalist with no consequences.
> The charges were eventually dismissed as baseless and the law ruled unconstitutionally vague. But those officers were given qualified immunity for violating her First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and 14th Amendment rights when they arrested and detained her, thus preventing her from holding them accountable in civil court.
https://reason.com/2021/11/03/cops-arrested-her-for-exercisi...
But, bearing in mind that these judges have been speaking about whether the Laredo police have qualified immunity concerning their 2017 actions, I think the key question is what is the future impact of the Texas law having been found unconstitutional -- in particular does it change what constitutes a clearly established violation? I.e. even if Villarreal cannot sue the Laredo police for their actions in 2017, in 2022 when police know this statute is bad, can they still investigate/charge journalists with impunity?