Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Privacy and Court Records

I'm off to Tampa early this morning for two days for the inaugural meeting of the Florida Supreme Court Committee on Privacy and Court Records.

If the truth be told, I suspect that the fundamental problem which the Committee is supposed to solve is a typical tragic choice, one with no pure solution. Thus, when first asked to serve, I expressed reluctance. But when pressed, I capitulated: service on committees like this is part of the social contract I think ought to apply to law professors.

So here I am. If there's a way to preserve the tradition of the fullest practicable public access to court records (a First Amendment right, and maybe a due process right too) in an age of cheap online full text access and also fully to protect the reasonable privacy interests of people caught up in Family Court or the like (especially pro se's who often disclose too much about themselves in their filings), I have yet to hear of it.

Some compromises are better than others, but they have resource implications that may be a tough sell in Florida. (Indeed the whole issue is quite political in this state as the revenues from selling electronic access accrue to the offices of the clerks of the regional courts, and they may well object to anything that threatens this revenue stream to their offices or imposes expensive redaction duties.)

Background reading, if you are so minded, begins with the Florida Judicial Management Council Privacy and Electronic Access to Court Records—Report and Recommendations (Dec. 17, 2001) and Florida Report of the Study Committee on Public Records (Feb. 15, 2003).

Posted in Law: Privacy, Talks & Conferences | Comments Off on Privacy and Court Records

British (Officers) Describe Ugly Americans

I have no idea if it is true that US forces in Iraq are acting like a bunch of racist Rambos; I would hate to have it be so. But even if it isn't true, it ought to worry people just a little that our closest allies, the British, a people not renowned for their progressive attitudes about foreigners and non-whites, believe it to be true.

British commanders condemn US military tactics – Iraq

Senior British commanders have condemned American military tactics in Iraq as heavy-handed and disproportionate.

One senior officer said that America's aggressive methods were causing friction among allied commanders and that there was a growing sense of “unease and frustration” among the British high command.

The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said part of the problem was that American troops viewed Iraqis as untermenschen – the Nazi expression for “sub-humans”.

Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, the officer said: “My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are.”

(via Juan Cole)

Posted in Iraq | 2 Comments

When Bad Taste Is Acceptable

When I was an undergraduate at Yale, more than twenty years ago, my main extracurricular activity was being a reporter for the Yale Daily News. In my second year on the news I got the coveted “Bart Beat” which made me the student responsible for covering Yale's President, A. Bartlett Giamatti, then early in his term at Yale, later Commissioner of Baseball, tragically dead far too young.

President Giamatti was a wonderful, erudite, voluble man, always very quotable. I very much enjoyed talking with him. While he often said things I might not have agreed with, there was only one subject that really seemed to make him irrational, and that was protest movements. In his heart (scarred, I thought, by his experience as a non-protestor at Yale in the late 1960's, when he had been a graduate student and aspirant member of the establishment) I suspect that 'Bart' probably did not really approve of any organized protest against the power structure of which he was pleased to be a part. Intellectually, however, he certainly recognized the legitimacy and importance of both personal and even organized protest. Bart drew the line, however, at breaches of the public norms of civility that he held to be an essential part of the academic community. To hear him tell it, one of the greater crimes in the history of Yale was committed when students gathered during the Vietnam war era and shouted obscenities at Yale and national authorities. To scream, and especially to scream four letter words, was to trash all the ideals of civilized discourse that he held dear.

I felt then, and—perhaps demonstrating that I have learned nothing in twenty years—still feel now, that Bart's rule was too encompassing. It's a good rule most of the time, but there are extraordinary circumstances, like the Vietnam War, like today, when it is proper at times to break the norms of civility because the things against which one protests are themselves so evil or even obscene.

I thought of Bart this evening because Bart's rule would forbid my linking to this painful, ugly, and true remix of a portion of George Bush's recent speech at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, for it is not a very decorous form of dissent, and will doubtlessly offend many. But we live in special ugly times, and so I commend to you—with a warning—this quicktime movie.

[Movie found via Cory Doctorow's Boing Boing (“vicious, brilliant and true”), who got it via Dan Gilmore (“slightly unfair but powerful”), who got it via Wonkette(“Zany Laff Time…helpful”).]

Posted in Politics: US | 1 Comment

Cheney and the Soveitized Duck Test

Steve Koppelman explains how their similarly Sovietized hunting habits demonstrate that Vice President Cheney is at least 175% the leader Boris Yeltsin was.

Read it, and then consider whether there's anything fishy about this AP story,

President Bush skipped a third round of fishing on his ranch pond Saturday with a crew from an outdoors show, though his performance the day before was something to brag about.

“He took the biggest one of the day,'' a bass nearly four pounds, said Roland Martin, host of the Outdoor Life Network program, “Fishing with Roland Martin.''

Posted in Completely Different | Comments Off on Cheney and the Soveitized Duck Test

Smoking Gun? No. Smoking Cannon.

The New York Times has the devastating report..

It begins:

President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.

Posted in 9/11 & Aftermath, Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals | 1 Comment

Pesky Legal Speedbump for Florida Legislature

Columns: More than one route to the Hill for speaker is a political roundup column that's mostly about how Flordians are not warming to Rep. Byrd, the loathsome, craven, special-interest sellout who is the Speaker of the Florida House. This despite Speaker Byrd's tri-weekly spam emails to everyone in the state, his phoney push polls, and piles of special interest campaign money.

But the really interesting thing in this St. Petersburg Times column is the final tidbit, one that is catnip for constitutional law junkies (spotted via Flablog):

State legislators took this week off, but is it legal?

The Florida Constitution says the Legislature cannot adjourn its 60-day session for more than 72 consecutive hours without passing a concurrent resolution. The House and Senate passed no resolution when they left town last week, merely recessing for 10 days for Passover and the Easter holidays.

Former House Dean Carl Ogden says lawmakers could be forced to call themselves back into special session and re-file all of the bills that are pending or face having anything they do declared invalid by a court.

Indeed, the Florida Constitution states in Article III, Section 3, paragraph (e) that “Neither house shall adjourn for more than seventy-two consecutive hours except pursuant to concurrent resolution.”

Whether it follows that an excessive adjournment amounts to the end of the session isn't 100% obvious to me, although it makes sense if the only other alternative is to say that it's a political question for which there is no relief (always an awful answer in my book). A quick and dirty Westlaw search found little in the way of relevant caselaw. In light of State ex rel. Landis v. Thompson, 125 Fla. 466, 170 So. 464 (1936) (Legislative day can only be terminated by adjournment or some actual dispersing of assembled membership amounting to same thing), the viewpoint that an excessive adjourment terminates the session certainly seems arguble. I think Mr. Ogden has a point, and that the legislature becomes functus officio after 72 hours adjournment without a concurrent resolution. Meaning no more laws this year unless a special session is called…which indeed requires re-introducing them all.

Posted in Florida | Comments Off on Pesky Legal Speedbump for Florida Legislature