we condemn the departments actions in the strongest terms, and incursion to immediately drop this purported investigation. joining us now is katie townsend, who s at the freedom of the press. thanks for being with us tonight, thank you. thanks for having me, rachel. so if she were to call the reporters committee s free legal hotline to ask for advice here, what advice would you give her in the circumstance? well, i think i would say, first off their s long-standing legal authority, including supreme court s landmark decision makes clear that a news organization can be held criminally liable for publishing information of public concern, it doesn t matter if the video issue that you played earlier, rachel, is confidential, it doesn t matter if it was leaked to the los angeles times. the constitution doesn t commit the criminal prosecution from receiving and publishing it.
decision makes clear that a news organization can be held criminally liable for publishing information of public concern, it doesn t matter if the video issue that you played earlier, rachel, is confidential, it doesn t matter if it was leaked to the los angeles times. the constitution doesn t commit the criminal prosecution from receiving and publishing it. the sheriff s department should know that, and it shouldn t be threatening a criminal investigation of rhea retaliation for that constitutionally protected activity. well, threatening and retaliation of the key words there. my understanding, from the sort of political reputation of the sheriff here, who is, as i mentioned, running for reelection, is he might like this sort of lawless images crates about him, and sort of screw the first amendment, screw the press kind of image
did mention the espionage act and said that the violation of this other statute, the computer fraud and abuse act, was in furtherance of an espionage act violation. and so it already sort of raised the specter that something like this was coming. but this is really what free speech and free press advocates have been worrying about. this is the first time in a hundred years that the espionage act has been used. i mean since the act became law, the first time it s been used against a publisher for publishing information of public concern. and it really does cross a new frontier. you had the bush administration begin prosecuting leakers as spies. you had the obama administration prosecute more espionage act cases than all previous administrations combined. but none of those prosecutions involved a publisher. now we have a publisher. i just want to be clear on that distinction. the people that were prosecuted were people that had done the leaking. that s right. and were i think in al
now you ve got these. what do you make of that? well, the first indictment did mention the espionage act and said that the violation of this other statute, the computer fraud and abuse act, was in furtherance of an espionage act violation. and so it already sort of raised the specter that something like this was coming. but this is really what free speech and free press advocates have been worrying about. this is the first time in a hundred years that the espionage act has been used. i mean since the act became law, the first time it s been used against a publisher for publishing information of public concern. and it really does cross a new frontier. you had the bush administration begin prosecuting leakers as spies. you had the obama administration prosecute more espionage act cases than all previous administrations combined. but none of those prosecutions involved a publisher. now we have a publisher. i just want to be clear on that distinction.