[ejb999]

>> 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.

[flutas]

> 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-orde...

[djbusby]

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

[ejb999]

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]

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]

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]

> 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[salawat]

You sbsolutely do have a right topost blassified documents if you come across them, but have not attained a security clearance.

There's definitely a massive "should" aspect there, however, the courts will protect you in that case. The one who got them for you, or if you committed a crime in acquiring them however...

That is a different story.

[vageli]

> 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.

Did the reporters who broke the pentagon papers see court? Only the source as I recall, which seems contrary to your statement.

[fire]

oooh, while reading this thread, it crossed my mind that, well, if this website knows where it got the data from, then it could provide that info to the end-user, so they could actually have the source removed.

It isn't infeasible to see a future where this website could continue to provide the public the benefit of its existence, and also help protect the people who actually do need to have their records protected;

It sort of depends on how anarchistic the maintainers lean, and how much of an appetite courts actually have for fixing record leaks rather than blocking access to the tools or suing...

I guess you could verify a record should be in a sealed state with the file that states the sealing happened, right? I vaguely remember document IDs from the last time I touched anything related to them.

[lazide]

We aren’t talking about any of those things - we’re specifically talking about public records however.