Texas prosecutors last week dismissed a criminal case against a journalist who was arrested, strip-searched and jailed in 2021 for filming police officers. But in a sense, his long legal battle is just beginning, and again asks us to explore ideas like this: real Journalists have different rights than the public.
That’s because Justin Pulliam, the man in question, is a citizen journalist. He was not employed by the store. Instead, he posted the report to his YouTube channel, Corruption reportTrue to its name, it is unapologetically skeptical of state power and supports transparency.
The Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office (FBSCO) was allegedly annoyed by his bold behavior. In July 2021, Pulliam was kicked out of a press conference by police because they claimed he was not media qualified; in December of the same year, he was arrested for filming police during a mental health call, despite He had been stationed 130 feet away from the interaction. Officer Tyler Rollins asked Pulliam to move further back, which Pulliam did, although he continued to film the deputy’s conversation with other bystanders at the scene (no one was arrested).
It didn’t end well for Pulliam, who was charged with interfering with police duties. (According to his complainRicky Rodriguez, the officer who assisted with the arrest, told another officer at the jail that the ordeal would teach Pulliam “to stay with us.” , the jury failed to reach a verdict in the case, with five jurors hoping for acquittal and one urging conviction. It took more than a year for law enforcement to decide not to pursue the case further.
One wonders whether the Fort Bend administration is wisely allocating resources to support public safety when it doggedly pursues cases because someone was filming them. On a deeper level, however, it’s worth asking whether law enforcement would have brought the case to trial if Pulliam worked for a formal media outlet. My guess is no.
It’s hard to reconcile those two things. After all, journalism is an activity that involves gathering information and reporting it to the public. This kind of adventure is not reserved for people who work in full-time newsgathering organizations, and the power of the First Amendment should not depend on whether you are on the payroll of a media organization. Even if Pulliam does not consider himself a journalist at all—citizen or otherwise—his right to photograph the government employees he pays with his tax dollars should remain intact. This certainly should not be at the expense of his freedom.
Whether he will be able to sue before a jury in civil court has not yet been determined. Last June, U.S. District Judge David Hittner of the Southern District of Texas allowed Pulliam’s federal lawsuit to proceed but declined to grant the defendants qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects state and local governments. Actors are immune from such accusations if the misconduct they are accused of is not “clearly provided for” by the law.
“The individual defendants assert that there is no case law to support their assertion that the indictment precludes claims of First Amendment violation,” wrote Hittner. “Indeed, based on the facts alleged in the complaint, it appears that Pulliam was singled out and arrested for exercising his First Amendment rights.”
Pulliam’s condition, however, is unclear. Next, he must convince the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has considered a similar case in recent months: that of citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal of Laredo, Texas. In the case of Priscilla Villarreal, police arrested her in 2017 using an obscure statute that criminalized the conduct. If this description sounds a lot like standard journalism—seeking information that isn’t already public—that’s because it is. Despite attracting some strange accomplices to her defense, Villarreal did not fare well in court.
While her case is not identical to Pulliam’s, they both raise very similar issues, particularly as it relates to the idea that a certain category of journalists should receive more rights than others. “Villarreal and others painted her as a martyr for the sake of journalism,” wrote In the majority opinion, Judge Edith Jones dismissed Villarreal’s lawsuit and granted the police certain immunity. Jones said “it was inappropriate” because Villarreal posted her report on her popular Facebook page La Gordilloca, not “mainstream legal media.” Her right to free speech was compromised as a result.
