But it's her free speech to do so. Also, it matters what is considered an official document- were those papers considered an official document?
If so, then yes- she may have broken the law (although counter-point, 1st amendment). Otherwise it wasn't and it wasn't breaking the law.
I don't like her one bit, but the laws should apply to all of us equally.
Strawman again.
Nothing to do with Free Speech. These documents aren't even her property. Destroying something that doesn't belong to you isn't free speech.
The documents must be left intact where they were placed. It's then the responsibility of someone else paid to collect and archive or destroy them, if necessary.
She abused her power and should be held responsible.
Counterpoint: How do you know those documents weren't her property? Where does it say that the documents must be left intact where they were placed?
Another Strawman
These documents are provided by the government and remain its property.
Where does it say that the documents must be left intact where they were placed?
You certainly aren't very familiar with these speeches or you wouldn't ask that question.
(post is archived)