"“The legal letter was just completely wrong in its interpretation of the law. And it had real implications for press freedom,” he said. “He was given a bunch of chances to sort of be like, oh, in hindsight, we shouldn't have sent that letter. And at every turn, he has doubled down.”"
"“I simply repeated what the law says. If you are in possession of information that is confidential and you disclose and you make that information public, or you disclose it, you are subject to action for violation of privacy laws,” Becerra said."
"“Once the cat's out of the bag, whether the information is accurate or not, it's out of the bag,” said Marvel, whose group represents more than 85,000 rank-and-file police officers in the state."
"Paladino, one of those reporters, said the letter was concerning for numerous reasons: He argued it showed a hostility toward a free press, a misunderstanding of basic First Amendment law, and a willingness to kowtow to law enforcement groups."
A state attorney general sent a legal letter threatening reporters over confidential information, but did not follow through on the threats after the reporters published their story. One reporter said the letter was concerning because it showed hostility toward a free press, misunderstood basic First Amendment law, and reflected willingness to defer to law enforcement groups. The reporter said the attorney general had multiple chances to correct the letter but instead doubled down. In a later interview, the attorney general insisted he was following the law, stating that disclosing confidential information can trigger privacy-law violations. A law enforcement lobbying group rejected claims of political motivation and said the attorney general wanted the law to support releasing information that could harm an officer’s career.
Read at Kqed
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]