State Gives Dodgy Counters to Vlogger’s Claims Of Being Arrested for Asking Questions

The case of Priscilla Villarreal, a Laredo, Texas journalist arrested for asking questions, is drawing national attention as it heads to the Supreme Court. In 2017, Villarreal, a crime vlogger, was arrested under an obscure Texas statute for allegedly soliciting the release of “unauthorized” information from a police officer about a public suicide and a fatal car accident. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, however, has framed the case differently, arguing that Villarreal’s arrest was for soliciting the commission of a crime, rather than for basic journalism.

The heart of the case revolves around whether the arrest violated Villarreal’s First Amendment rights. She was charged under Section 39.06(c) of the Texas Penal Code, which makes it a felony to solicit or receive information from a public servant that has not been made public, with the intent to obtain a “benefit.” The law has been criticized for its vagueness and potential to criminalize normal journalistic practices, including asking for and publishing information from government sources.

While the charges against Villarreal were dismissed, the case has sparked debate over press freedom and the limits of free speech. In January 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld qualified immunity for the Laredo officials who arrested her, meaning they were protected from legal liability because they did not violate “clearly established” law. However, this ruling was met with sharp dissents from several judges, including Judge James C. Ho, who emphasized that the First Amendment protects citizens’ rights to question and criticize public officials without fear of imprisonment.

Villarreal’s petition for Supreme Court review has garnered significant support from civil libertarians and journalists, who fear the case sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of the press. They argue that if law enforcement can arrest journalists for asking questions, it could have a chilling effect on reporting, particularly when it involves obtaining information from unofficial sources.

Paxton, meanwhile, contends that Villarreal’s case does not raise serious First Amendment concerns, framing her actions as more akin to incitement rather than legitimate journalistic inquiry. He defends the arrest as reasonable under the law, despite the dismissals and ongoing criticisms of Section 39.06(c).

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear Villarreal’s case will have far-reaching implications for press freedom, government transparency, and the broader question of how far the state can go in regulating the flow of information to the public.