Supreme Court Will Allow Citizen Journalist Case to Move Forward
It would appear that you no longer have to work for a recognized news source to be considered a journalist.
This week, the Supreme Court breathed fresh life into a case that was tossed by lower courts.
The case centers around the rights of a female “journalist” who posts her reports on social media.
Freedom of the Press
The question of what constitutes a journalist has taken on new meaning with the rise of alt-media and social media.
For instance, when people ask me what I do for a living, I usually respond that I am a political writer, not a journalist, even though most people would consider me one.
I use that title because I have always associated a “journalist” with someone who is anchored to mainstream media.
However, with publications like this and social media reporting (there are plenty of people who only use Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, etc. for reporting), that definition is quickly changing.
This brings us to the case of Priscilla Villarreal, who has about 200,000 followers on her Facebook page.
She was attempting to sue the Laredo Police Department because she was arrested for seeking out information from a department source.
She was arrested because Texas law says it is illegal to seek out non-public information for personal gain.
Villarreal’s case was tossed by the lower courts, but the Supreme Court is now allowing her to revive it.
Even though she does not work for a mainstream media outlet, she has a significant following, which includes the residents of Laredo, TX, a city of just more than 250,000.
Major news outlets are backing Villarreal’s case, with several writing a brief to support her.
When the case came before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court sided with the lower courts, tossing the case.
She was blasted by a Ronald Reagan appointee, US Circuit Judge Edith Jones, who was in the majority and stated, “Villarreal and others portray her as a martyr for the sake of journalism. That is inappropriate.
“She could have followed Texas law, or challenged that law in court, before reporting nonpublic information from the backchannel source.”
Or, perhaps the court could have done its job and addressed a law that needed to be changed based on her case, considering how much journalism has changed over the last decade with the rise of internet journalism.
Due to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the 5th Circuit will now have another chance to consider the case, and perhaps this time, they will do their jobs.
