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 of this creates of him but i wonder if, he is it is getting some unexpected blow back. i did hope and expect that the l.a. times is pushing back with all its got here. is the sheriff may be biting off more than he can chew here in terms of what part of the constitution is messing here, by doing this. rachel, i d like to think that this sort of conduct would receive widespread condemnation, not just from members of the press, which we ve seen, but just from members of the public the reporter that was targeted
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