Five years ago, the Harris County, Texas, Institute of Forensic Sciences sent me reports on the autopsies of two people who had been killed in a Houston drug raid. After I wrote an article based on those reports, the county attorney’s office told me they were not public information because they were part of an ongoing investigation.
Although I did not realize it at the time, I had committed a felony just by asking for that information. You might think a law that criminalizes journalism is obviously unconstitutional. But if so, you are wrong, according to a decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued last week.
The case involves Priscilla Villarreal, a Laredo gadfly and DIY journalist who was arrested in 2017 for violating Section 39.06(c) of the Texas Penal Code. Under that law, a person who “solicits or receives” information that “has not been made public” from a government official “with intent to obtain a benefit” commits a third-degree felony, punishable by two to 10 years in prison.
Villarreal allegedly did that by asking Laredo police officer Barbara Goodman about a suicide and a fatal car crash. Goodman confirmed the name and job of a U.S. Border Patrol employee who had jumped off a Laredo overpass and the last name of an accident victim. Villarreal included that information in reports on her locally popular Facebook page.
Texas defines “benefit” as “anything reasonably regarded as economic gain or advantage.” According to the arrest affidavits, the “benefit” that Villarreal sought was a boost in Facebook traffic.
Section 39.06(c) defines “information that has not been made public” as “any information to which the public does not generally have access” that is also “prohibited from disclosure” under the Texas Public Information Act. The arrest affidavits did not address the latter requirement at all.
Although this law has been on the books for more than two decades, no one has ever been convicted under it. Nor had Laredo police ever charged anyone with violating it.
After a Texas judge blocked Villarreal’s prosecution, deeming the statute unconstitutionally vague, she filed a federal lawsuit against the officers who were involved in her arrest, arguing that they targeted her because they were irked by her vocal criticism of local law enforcement agencies. She noted that several cops had mocked her after the arrest, laughing while snapping pictures with their cellphones.
A federal judge dismissed Villarreal’s lawsuit after concluding that the officers were protected by qualified immunity, which allows federal civil rights claims only when they allege misconduct that violated “clearly established” law. A 5th Circuit panel overruled that decision in 2021.
“Priscilla Villarreal was put in jail for asking a police officer a question,” Judge James Ho wrote. “If that is not an obvious violation of the Constitution, it’s hard to imagine what would be.”
After rehearing the case, nine of Ho’s colleagues disagreed, ruling that the officers had probable cause to arrest Villarreal and that the law was not so blatantly unconstitutional that they should have recognized it was inconsistent with the First Amendment. The majority faulted Villarreal for using a “backchannel source,” a routine reporting practice that has exposed abuses such as Watergate, the My Lai massacre, Vietnam War deception, and torture at the Abu Ghraib prison.
Seven judges dissented. They noted that Laredo police had spent months investigating Villarreala far cry from the “split-second judgments” to which qualified immunity supposedly applies. “If the First Amendment means anything,” Ho wrote, “surely it means that citizens have the right to question or criticize public officials without fear of imprisonment.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) represented Villarreal, who drew support from ideologically diverse groups, including press associations, the Institute for Justice, the Cato Institute, the Constitutional Accountability Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Project Veritas, and Young America’s Foundation. Unlike the 5th Circuit majority, they recognized the perils of treating journalism as a crime.
A new study has identified the primary force behind Venus’s extreme superrotating atmosphere: a once-per-day thermal tide driven by solar heating. Using data from Venus Express and Akatsuki along with circulation models, researchers show that this daily tide transports most of the momentum that accelerates cloud-top winds to speeds over 100 metres per second. The re…
Satire has long been an occupational hazard for politicians – and while it has long been cartoons or shows like Spitting Image, content created by artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly becoming the norm.
A new page called the Crewkerne Gazette has been going viral in recent days for their videos using the new technology to satirise Rachel Reeves and other politicians around the budget.
On Sky’s Politics Hub, our presenter Darren McCaffrey spoke to one of the people behind the viral sensations, who is trying to remain anonymous.
He said: “A lot of people are drawing comparisons between us and Spitting Image, actually, and Spitting Image was great back in the day, but I kind of feel like recently they’ve not really covered a lot of what’s happening.
“So we are the new and improved Spitting Image, the much better Have I Got News For You?”
He added that those kinds of satire shows don’t seem to be engaging with younger people – but claimed his own output is “incredibly good at doing” just that.
Examples of videos from the Crewkerne Gazette includes a rapping Kemi Badenoch and Rachel Reeves advertising leaky storage containers.
More on Beth Rigby Interviews
Related Topics:
They even satirised our political editor Beth Rigby’s interview with the prime minister on Thursday, when he defended measures in the budget and insisted they did not break their manifesto pledge by raising taxes.
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
Rachel Reeves has been accused of failing to “support the great British pub” as she promised in the budget, with owners facing skyrocketing business rates bills.
In her speech in the House of Commons on Wednesday, the chancellor said she was backing small businesses by introducing “permanently lower tax rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties – the lowest tax rates since 1991”.
But while the government gave itself the powers to discount the business rates bills for high street businesses through legislation earlier this year, the chancellor only implemented a reduction of a quarter of what the government is able to, and she is being accused of imposing a “stealth tax”.
It has left small retail, hospitality, and leisure businesses questioning whether their businesses will be viable beyond April next year.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
8:46
Sky’s Ed Conway looks at the aftermath of the budget and explains who the winners and losers are.
A Treasury spokesperson said: “We’re protecting pubs, restaurants and cafes with the budget’s £4.3bn support package – capping bill rises so a typical independent pub will pay around £4,800 less next year than they otherwise would have.
“This comes on top of cutting licensing costs to help more venues offer pavement drinks and al fresco dining, maintaining our cut to alcohol duty on draught pints, and capping corporation tax.”
Business rates, which are a tax on commercial properties in England and Wales, are calculated through a complex formula of the value of the property, assessed by a government agency every three years, combined with a national “multiplier” set by the Treasury, giving a final cash amount.
More on Budget 2025
Related Topics:
Image: Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been accused of imposing a “stealth tax” on hospitality businesses. Pic: PA
Over the last few years, small businesses were given business rates relief of 75% to support them over the COVID pandemic, and Ms Reeves reduced that to 40% at last year’s budget.
The idea was that at the budget this year, the chancellor would remove that remaining relief in favour of reforming the business rates system to compensate for that drop, while shifting the tax burden on to much bigger businesses and companies like Amazon with lots of warehouse space.
However, the chancellor only announced a 5p in the pound discount for small retail, hospitality, and leisure businesses, rather than the assumed 20p drop which the government gave itself the powers to implement, and which trade bodies had been lobbying for.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:57
How will your personal finances change following the budget announced by the chancellor?
On top of that, small businesses have seen the government-assessed value of their property increase dramatically, which wipes out the discount, and sees their business rates bill shoot far above what they had previously been paying.
One pub owner near Hull, Sam Caroll, has seen the assessed value of one of his two properties increase from £67,000 to £110,000 in just three years – a 64% increase.
He told Sky News that there is a “continual question” of business viability, and while he thinks they can “adapt” in the short term, “there will be a tipping point at some point”. Even at the moment, packing out their pubs seven nights a week, “it’s difficult for us to break even”, he said.
There will be a discount for small businesses to transition to the higher business rates level, but by year three, almost the full amount is expected to be payable, and Mr Carroll described it as “getting f***** slowly, instead of getting f***** overnight”.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
Sean Hughes, who owns multiple hospitality venues in St Albans, has also seen vast increases in the assessed value of his properties, and was sharply critical of the transitional arrangements the government is implementing.
He told Sky News: “Fundamental business rate reform was promised and we have total chaos. If [the system] was fair, why would they need transitional relief periods?”
A spokesperson of the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), which assesses the value of commercial properties for business rates purposes, told Sky News: “At the last revaluation, some sectors including hospitality were significantly affected by the pandemic, which resulted in much lower rateable values than they would have seen otherwise. Businesses that have now seen a recovery in trade are also likely to see an increase in their rateable value.”
However, Sky News has seen evidence of businesses whose assessed value did not decrease when assessed during the pandemic, but actually rose, and has risen dramatically this year.
Data compiled by the Pubs Advisory Service, shows that the number of pubs in the UK has decreased by nearly 5% in three years, but the average value of the properties has risen by an average of 36.82% per pub.
And analysis by UK Hospitality, the trade body that represents hospitality businesses, has found that over the next three years, the average pub will pay an extra £12,900 in business rates, even with the transitional arrangements, while an average hotel will see its bill soar by £205,200.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:30
The prime minister has defended the budget after he and the chancellor were accused of breaking their promise to voters.
The body adds that by 2028/29, an average pub’s business rates will have increased by 76% and an average hotel’s by 115%, compared to 16% for a distribution warehouse like the ones the web giants use.
It’s not just the business rates rise that is worrying owners – it is the increase in employers’ national insurance implemented at the last budget, the increase in energy bills over the last few years, and the rise in the minimum wage, particularly for young people.
With the budget set to squeeze disposal income, there is little room for price increases to make up the shortfall either.
In a letter to the chancellor on Friday, Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper said small business owners “have been pushed to tears as they’re hit with the bombshell of higher business rates bills”, noting that “the government has chosen not to use the full powers it gave itself to throw high streets a lifeline”.
She added that businesses had been promised “permanently lower business rates”, but it appears the government has “broken yet another promise, by imposing a stealth tax not just on people, but on treasured high street businesses too”, and called on ministers to “throw our high streets and Britain’s hospitality sector a lifeline”.
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
Conservative shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith published his own analysis of the government’s budget measures on Friday morning, that found they will “hammer British pubs”.
Of the chancellor, he said: “She pretended in her budget speech to be supportive, whilst the true detail is that a combination of rate revaluations and scrapping reliefs will leave most pubs paying thousands of pounds more than they cannot afford.”
Kate Nicholls, Chair of UKHospitality, said in a statement: “The government promised in its manifesto that it would level the playing field between the high street and online giants. The plan in the budget to achieve this is quickly unravelling, and will deliver the exact opposite.”
She said they “repeatedly warned the Treasury” of the impending impacted of the value reassessment, but nonetheless, hospitality businesses are now facing “eye-watering increases”.
She added: “We agree with its reforms to deliver permanently lower business rates for hospitality and we appreciate the package of transitional relief, but its current proposal is not delivering lower bills. A 20p discount for hospitality would. We urge the chancellor to revisit.”