It isn’t, in this case. It says the law may have been broken. Until a prosecutor comes along and goes for an indictment, then the person is convicted, saying that they broke a law isn’t a fact.

It’s splitting hairs for casual conversation, but when it comes to making a public statement, you run into libel issues.

So, while it grumpy definitely is a fact that the pictures are released, and that she did so, no legitimate press is going to say she broke that law, only that she may have. If she’s indicted, then they could say “charged with”, or similar language. But until a jury in a criminal case renders a verdict, the press as a whole wouldn’t be protected if they said she broke the law. Well, there’s other things that would clear that language for use, but they still involve determination of guilt in the courts

Basically, it covers their ass.