Court Upholds Public Right of Access To Court Documents (eff.org) 19
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation: A core part of EFF's mission is transparency and access to information, because we know that in a nation bound by the rule of law, the public must have the ability to know the law and how it is being applied. That's why the default rule is that the public must have full access to court records -- even if those records contain unsavory details. Any departure from that rule must be narrow and well-justified. But litigants and judges aren't always rigorous in upholding that principle. For example, when Brian Fargo sued Jennifer Tejas for allegedly defamatory Instagram posts, he asked that the court seal portions of his filings that contained those posts, references to other people and private medical information. The court granted Fargo's request, with little explanation or apparent care.
That approach set a dangerous precedent for others. The public has a right to know what courts consider defamatory. So, with help from the First Amendment Clinic at UCLA School of Law, EFF and the First Amendment Coalition moved to unseal the records containing the Instagram posts and references to other people. The judge denied that request. Undeterred, we appealed -- and won (PDF download). The appeals court chided the trial court for its failure to adequately justify its sealing order, and its equal failure to make sure the order was narrowly tailored so that as little as possible would be hidden from the public. While it did allow some information to remain sealed -- information related to private medical records can be kept from the public, and pseudonyms should be used in some exhibits to protect the privacy of third parties -- it ordered the rest released.
That approach set a dangerous precedent for others. The public has a right to know what courts consider defamatory. So, with help from the First Amendment Clinic at UCLA School of Law, EFF and the First Amendment Coalition moved to unseal the records containing the Instagram posts and references to other people. The judge denied that request. Undeterred, we appealed -- and won (PDF download). The appeals court chided the trial court for its failure to adequately justify its sealing order, and its equal failure to make sure the order was narrowly tailored so that as little as possible would be hidden from the public. While it did allow some information to remain sealed -- information related to private medical records can be kept from the public, and pseudonyms should be used in some exhibits to protect the privacy of third parties -- it ordered the rest released.
It' s possible to protect privacy at the same time (Score:2, Interesting)
Protecting privacy and not publishing the intimate details of a person like their medical history or their sexual preferences is quite possible without having to resort to creating secret courts the kind of which certain dictatorships became famous for. It is possible to render data anonymous or not disclose the private data without sealing the court decision entirely.
It's also possible to let the data be reviewed by lawyers that have no personal connection to the case and bind them with NDAs concerning the
Re: (Score:1)
Re:It' s possible to protect privacy at the same t (Score:5, Insightful)
the idea of privacy in court is an anathema to due process and and informed public on multiple levels.
As much as it sucks to have your privacy on the air, more often than not it becomes a bludgeon to silence people with.
There are so many examples that heads should be spinning.
Under the guise of "peoples privacy and safety" children are awarded to parents that kill them. People tossed in jail and under terrorism bullshit people not even able to mount a proper defense. Imaging you are being falsely charged but you cannot even talk to the press because "gag order"... the first fucking Amendment does not have a stipulation that you have a right to the freedom of the press "except" when a judge says so.
And the 6th says "right to PUBLIC and SPEEDY trial". It amazes me that people have the expectation that they should be allowed to "compel" privacy during court. Sorry, but that is not compatible with either a Democracy or a Republic. If you want either of those... 100% of all court cases are required to be open to public and that there be no possible way for a judge or government agent to compel privacy or gag orders.
Very few people actually want liberty because way too many people want to control other people... on multiple levels. What you can watch, eat, hear, say, posses, travel, or look at.
And before you say that open documents can be abused... yes they sure can... but there is a greater abuse that goes on as it is now. And people wonder why they cannot get justice in this nation...
Re: (Score:2)
the first fucking Amendment does not have a stipulation that you have a right to the freedom of the press "except" when a judge says so
In light of the fact that it is judges who interpret the law in most countries, how is the above statement not wrong?
Re: (Score:1)
The judge does not have the authority to overrule the constitution. That's why bench-side activism (eg. 9th circuit) is deplorable.
Re: (Score:1)
when a judge says so
judges interpret the law
I guess this concept is a little bit too complicated for you to understand. Oh, well.
Re:It's possible to protect privacy at the same... (Score:2)
The role of an interpreter is to faithfully translate the intent of the original speaker or author, or in this case the legislature—not to substitute their own preferred version. There is some minor flexibility in interpretation which comes with any natural-language text but judges do not have carte blanche to claim that the law means whatever they feel like in direct contradiction to what was actually written and the known opinions of those actually responsible for passing the law or ratifying the am
Re: (Score:3)
Judges do not have infinite latitude in their interpretations. If the law says green, they may get away with saying teal counts, but fire engine red is right out.
Re: (Score:3)
Certain principles of privacy protection must be established, or else people will shy away from suing when it would be shameful for them to drag things out in court. I wouldn't want sex offenders to go free because they cow their victims into not going to court with the vision of having not only to recount the rape but also have it published for every other perv to get off to it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't want sex offenders to go free because they cow their victims into not going to court with the vision of having not only to recount the rape but also have it published for every other perv to get off to it.
How is that even a thing to worry about? Some random person you won't ever meet will engage in some vulgar personal behavior you'll never be aware of while recounting your experience? Do these people not go out in public during daylight hours, because somebody might look at them and then go home and masturbate?
I actually think that over-shielding sexual assault victims in court records is worse for them because it validates the notion that what happened to them is their fault and justifies their self-sham
Cool. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now do this with google and protect them from court orders to block links and cache websites.
If the courts can't be allowed to protect damaging information than facebook and google et al; shouldn't be forced to either.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now do this with Google and show uss the details of their settlements with various employment lawsuits, like James Dalmore's wrongful termination suit, or the course material concerning torture, blackmail, and extortion taught at the US "School of the Americas".
Re: (Score:1)
Those aren't criminal suits. They are disputes between private parties. It may not seem like it but you have no inherent right to be treated the same in private business.
Re: (Score:2)
You've a point that the final settlement is often a private contract. There are often records presented to the court, and which courts mandate display or even seizure of, at that point _do_ involve the court. It's especially been the case with patent litigation and technology companies like Google: the documents and decisions of earlier court cases could clarify later cases, but is rarely available to other plaintiffs without repeating the court orders.
There are also many cases where the matter was _not_ a
Being a judge must be great.. (Score:2)
Rule as horribly as you want, and the worst that can happen is that a higher court overturns it and "chides" you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least when judges are elected, it's on some level acknowledged that they wield political power. It's not a good solution to the problem, but going with "expertise" and "experience" is just denying the problem altogether.
Transparency trumps privacy, for now. (Score:3)
Court records have always contained information about peoples' private lives, but it was never much of a *practical* problem until the courts started digitizing those records: you had to go down to the courthouse, find a place to park, go to a clerk and ask to see the trial record, then read or at least skim that record by eye. This served the public interest in court transparency well without presenting much of a privacy problem.
Digitizing court records potentially undermines this pragmatic compromise. My state has dealt with this by only making the least sensitive records available online. If you want a copy of a trial transcript, you have to fill out a form and pay a $1/page fee, for which you will receive, in the mail, a paper copy. This preserves the pre-digital pragmatic compromise between transparency and privacy. It's not much protection against a determined digital stalker targeting you personally, but it protects you from casual snooping.
The fee and hard copy format are good things too. They prevent giant information aggregators like Google from sucking up all that sensitive information and turning it into a convenient, easy-to-use product.