4 ms·

>> we need to entirely change our public records laws... Immediately. I am certain that many people in government would agree with you - they would LOVE to be

by ejb999 5y ago

>> we need to entirely change our public records laws... Immediately. I am certain that many people in government would agree with you - they would LOVE to be able to hide what they are doing and not be held accountable for decisions they make (or don't make). We need more public disclosures, not less, imo. >>So there are records that were once ‘public’ but are no more, but this database makes them public again. This website didn't make them public, they just gave others a way to access them - once something is public, and in control of others, it is impossible to make them 'un-public' without violating the 1st amendment.

djbusby 5y ago
What's the point of sealed records then? How would that be managed? We should let citizens have some privacy right?
- ejb999 5y ago
  If they were sealed, they shouldn't be made public until they become unsealed (if ever) - but if they were public at some point, they are for all intents and purposes public forever. Very hard to make something private, after it has been out in the public.
  - thrashh 5y ago
    Plenty of things become super hard to find after no one cares about it anymore. High profile cases aren’t like that but most things are not high profile. Just because you can’t make something 100% perfect doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. Locks aren’t unbreakable. Seatbelts won’t always save you. Your cloud service won’t always stay up. Yet we use and build all these things and no one has an issue with it. And for all intents and purposes, if court records are meant to be hidden to protect someone’s future chance of success, by all means we should do what we can.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I don't think the discussion is about sealed records. I think the main point here is that the state needs to adequately seal the record. As a side note, I don't think Bar complaints should be private. People running the system should be transparent. The only reason transparency should be limited is with the name of the witness. Otherwise, how can we be sure the system is functioning correctly?
TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
> once something is public, and in control of others, it is impossible to make them 'un-public' without violating the 1st amendment. I do not think that is accurate.
- lazide 5y ago
  Can you be more specific? How do you propose someone could stop someone from releasing a record they acquired publicly, exactly? Seize it? Prohibit someone from saying something they found out via a public route on penalty of fine or prison?
  - verve_rat 5y ago
    Um, yes? Courts can issue injunctions to stop people from publishing material they have. If they breach the injunction they can go to jail, or have some other penalties imposed. Even in the US there are limits on free speech. A judge would weigh 1st amendment rights vs other considerations, but there are limits. Yelling fire in a theatre and all that.
    - lazide 5y ago
      Which works if it is 1 document, or one publisher, so someone can do the paperwork and a judge can handle it. And does infringe their 1st amendment rights, by the way. And if it’s a million documents and the publisher is everyone who got a torrent done in the months before the injunction?
      - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
        No one is talking about the reality of removing a million sources from the internet. We’re talking about the legal consequences and 1st amendment rights of individuals. You do not have a 1st amendment right to post, for example, classified documents or protected intellectual property. If you post those things, even if 2,000 people posted them before you, the law can still come down on you.
flutas 5y ago
> I am certain that many people in government would agree with you - they would LOVE to be able to hide what they are doing and not be held accountable for decisions they make (or don't make). We need more public disclosures, not less, imo. Agreed 100%, a local court has been making precedents with that and...it's unnerving. https://www.thv11.com/article/news/politics/routine-gag-orders-blocking-access-arkansas-court-cases/91-14572b01-873f-45ac-b07a-c1e21f94df34 https://www.thv11.com/article/news/politics/routine-gag-orde...

by ejb999 5y ago

djbusby 5y ago

What's the point of sealed records then? How would that be managed? We should let citizens have some privacy right?

ejb999 5y ago
If they were sealed, they shouldn't be made public until they become unsealed (if ever) - but if they were public at some point, they are for all intents and purposes public forever. Very hard to make something private, after it has been out in the public.
- thrashh 5y ago
  Plenty of things become super hard to find after no one cares about it anymore. High profile cases aren’t like that but most things are not high profile. Just because you can’t make something 100% perfect doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. Locks aren’t unbreakable. Seatbelts won’t always save you. Your cloud service won’t always stay up. Yet we use and build all these things and no one has an issue with it. And for all intents and purposes, if court records are meant to be hidden to protect someone’s future chance of success, by all means we should do what we can.
giantg2 5y ago
I don't think the discussion is about sealed records. I think the main point here is that the state needs to adequately seal the record. As a side note, I don't think Bar complaints should be private. People running the system should be transparent. The only reason transparency should be limited is with the name of the witness. Otherwise, how can we be sure the system is functioning correctly?

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

> once something is public, and in control of others, it is impossible to make them 'un-public' without violating the 1st amendment. I do not think that is accurate.

lazide 5y ago
Can you be more specific? How do you propose someone could stop someone from releasing a record they acquired publicly, exactly? Seize it? Prohibit someone from saying something they found out via a public route on penalty of fine or prison?
- verve_rat 5y ago
  Um, yes? Courts can issue injunctions to stop people from publishing material they have. If they breach the injunction they can go to jail, or have some other penalties imposed. Even in the US there are limits on free speech. A judge would weigh 1st amendment rights vs other considerations, but there are limits. Yelling fire in a theatre and all that.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Which works if it is 1 document, or one publisher, so someone can do the paperwork and a judge can handle it. And does infringe their 1st amendment rights, by the way. And if it’s a million documents and the publisher is everyone who got a torrent done in the months before the injunction?
    - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
      No one is talking about the reality of removing a million sources from the internet. We’re talking about the legal consequences and 1st amendment rights of individuals. You do not have a 1st amendment right to post, for example, classified documents or protected intellectual property. If you post those things, even if 2,000 people posted them before you, the law can still come down on you.

flutas 5y ago

> I am certain that many people in government would agree with you - they would LOVE to be able to hide what they are doing and not be held accountable for decisions they make (or don't make). We need more public disclosures, not less, imo. Agreed 100%, a local court has been making precedents with that and...it's unnerving. https://www.thv11.com/article/news/politics/routine-gag-orders-blocking-access-arkansas-court-cases/91-14572b01-873f-45ac-b07a-c1e21f94df34 https://www.thv11.com/article/news/politics/routine-gag-orde...