News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Umm, okay. The paperwork is a sworn statement and contains the written justification.
Are you saying the written justification which formed the basis of the warrant application was pretextual, and that the actual motive for the raid was something else?
It itself IS NOT justification.
What is written on it? Why can you not say their justification for signing it?
Oh, I haven't read the warrant application. I will if someone links it. I'm not sure it's public yet. It will be.
E: They are and here they are: https://kansasreflector.com/2023/08/21/affidavits-bolstering-siege-on-marion-paper-read-like-bad-jokes-at-expense-of-the-first-amendment/
E2: Okay I've read the affidavit for the search of the newspaper. Seems like good probable cause. Here's my TLDR:
An employee of the newspaper obtained a restaurant owner's confidential income tax records. The affidavit lists the reasons one can certify they have a legal right to access the records; news publication isn't one of them. Looks like the same list I have to certify as an attorney when searching personal records for investigations of legal rights and remedies. Indeed, the list comes from a federal statute, 18 U.S .C. § 2721.
The newspaper claims the records reveals police misconduct and emailed the record to police. The investigating officer agreed, and referred the matter for an internal affairs investigation. Not sure what the allegation is; that the chief (?) was stealing or embezzling money somehow with or through the restaurant (?).
The newspaper admits its employee accessed the record. None of the rights of access apply. The investigating officer concluded that the newspaper employee either impersonated the restauranteur and/or falsely certified as to a right of access, either of which are crimes. Identify theft and/or hacking (accessing a system without valid authorization).
Not sure what context I may be missing, but I'm questioning if this warrant is actually as offensive as I had previously believed.