Congressional Reporter for Vanity Fair Leaks Planned ICE Raids in DC Suburbs, Warns Targets to Avoid Highways

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

Now, In the United States, where freedom of speech is a fundamental right, We are taking journalist to court to decide if they violated First Amendment rights? This must be a new America.

Click to expand...

Freedom of Speech and of the Press is a right, but not an unlimited one, I've heard many say.

If they take this one to court, it'll be to find out if they obstructed a law enforcement operation in ways that could jeopardize public safety.


If this snippet is true:
Pablo Manriquez, Congressional reporter for Vanity Fair, posted leaked information on ICE raids planned for the D.C. suburbs of Northern Virginia this week, along with a warning to targets to stay off the highways in the area.


Then that's not journalism, that's just individual action that's leveraging his organization's sources (which include leaked information) so that he can engage in Twitter activism against laws he doesn't like on his personal Twitter feed.




Many states have laws against "Hindering Apprehension" specifically. And in some jurisdictions, it's rolled into their obstruction laws. DC is one such jurisdiction:

Second Degree.
An actor commits second degree obstruction of justice when the actor: (1) Knowing that an official proceeding or criminal investigation has been initiated for any crime; (2) With the purpose of obstructing or impeding a criminal investigation, apprehension, or the proper functioning and integrity of the official proceeding.


Even if he had done it within the context of an article, it wouldn't change the intent, which was to obstruct.

In other words, the intent was "I don't like this law, so I'm going to sabotage the police efforts to enforce it using leaked information"

If the police were planning on raiding a location known to be engaging in credit card fraud, and I took it upon myself to use my privileged sources/info via my job (my company assists with cybercrime research in a number of cases), and I know when they were going to act on it, and I hop on Twitter and say "Hey, the fuzz is going to raid this store, and these 3 homes day after tomorrow...so make sure you don't go to the store, and if you've got any of those fraudulent CC's laying around at home, make sure you plan accordingly"

...that would be considered obstruction, yes?

Valletta said:

Leaking information that exposes dishonesty and corruption is far different than leaking information which might cost lives if leaked. It's the difference between a police officer shooting an armed terrorist holding people hostage and an officer gunning down some 100 pound unarmed woman fifty feet away. Or shouting fire when there is a fire in order to get people evacuated or shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Click to expand...

Hint: it’s not for the government to decide what information publishers-of-information, publish.

RileyG said:

Exactly! It doesn't protect people from the CONSEQUENCES of their speech and/or actions.

Click to expand...

That phrase is generally used when people start talking about societal consequences for exercising your right to free speech. Legally, you can walk around waving a Nazi flag, but the 1st Amendment does not protect you from losing your job, businesses refusing to serve you, or random strangers wanting to scream in your face. What the 1st Amendment does protect you from are governmental consequences (like criminal prosecution) for your speech. There are exceptions to that rule, and I'm on the fence on whether or not this would fit into any of those exceptions, but you're using the phrase incorrectly here.

The journalist's statement was no different or more precise than warning drivers that the police have setup roadblocks in the area to check for drunk drivers and to be aware and plan your travels accordingly.

Should anyone saying that be arrested?

What about warning other drivers that there are police up ahead and to watch their speed? Arrestable offense?

Valletta said:

Let's say a terrorist is in the neighborhood, someone who has already killed thirty children at the local school. Should someone who contacts the terrorist and tells him where the police are be charged? How about if a hundred more are killed before the police capture the terrorist?

Click to expand...

Nobody "contacted" anyone. It was a tweet. they "contacted" everyone. If one of the people driving down the street was a terrorist and you flashed your brights at them to let them know there was a cop should you be arrested because one of the drivers was a terrorist completely unbeknownst to you?

Valletta said:

The government is going after some of the most violent criminals in the country.

Click to expand...

Right, like school teachers and Polish nationals who overstay their visas. Or did you just mean immigrants? Because there seems to be no distinction between actual criminals and, how did another poster put it? "immigrant degenerates"?