If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   SCOTUS supports state's rights to limit your freedom to information, citizen   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 57
    More: Sad, supreme courts, U.S. Supreme Court, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, states' rights, United States courts of appeals  
•       •       •

2578 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2013 at 9:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-30 08:08:54 AM  
Meh. I've got no problems with limiting a state's FOIA requests to residents and the media, to be honest with you. And if you really have such a problem with it, it's not hard to get around it - you can just hire a somebody in-state to file the FOIA request for you.
 
2013-04-30 08:12:01 AM  
Unanimous decision. Inb4 someone brings partisan bullshiat to this thread
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-30 08:27:38 AM  

cman: Unanimous decision. Inb4 someone brings partisan bullshiat to this thread


SCOTUS sounds like scrotum and that's obviously part of a GOP plot to undermine the rule of law.
 
2013-04-30 08:35:29 AM  

cman: Unanimous decision. Inb4 someone brings partisan bullshiat to this thread


I'm curious to see how they do it.  The idea here - that each state is responsible to its citizens, not to outsiders - is so obviously reasonable that I never understood the argument against it.
 
2013-04-30 08:35:54 AM  
Nice trolling headline.
 
2013-04-30 08:46:21 AM  

mattharvest: cman: Unanimous decision. Inb4 someone brings partisan bullshiat to this thread

I'm curious to see how they do it.  The idea here - that each state is responsible to its citizens, not to outsiders - is so obviously reasonable that I never understood the argument against it.


My only argument against it is if you move out of state, but still need information from the time you lived there, if they would be cooperative or not.
 
2013-04-30 09:16:09 AM  

cman: Unanimous decision. Inb4 someone brings partisan bullshiat to this thread


you really think that's going to stop anyone?
 
2013-04-30 09:34:48 AM  
The court unanimously upheld a federal appeals court decision validating Virginia's limitation of its FOIA law to state citizens and some media outlets.

This doesn't bother me much, except 'some media outlets' sounds kind of preferential. I haven't bothered to look at the state law about it.
 
2013-04-30 09:39:44 AM  
I'm sure that there's a Tea Party blog out there who are going to use this as evidence that the Supreme Court is conspiring against them for filing FOIA requests for Obama's REAL birth certificate.
 
2013-04-30 09:41:30 AM  
Meh.  This'll just open up a new revenue stream for lawyers.
 
2013-04-30 09:42:38 AM  
I didn't think this was that big a deal, but submitter's ominous use of "citizen" at the end of the headline is making me wonder what else I've been wrong about
 
2013-04-30 09:43:20 AM  
"limit your freedom to information"

wtf does that even mean?

how do you have freedom to information?
 
2013-04-30 09:45:29 AM  

mattharvest: cman: Unanimous decision. Inb4 someone brings partisan bullshiat to this thread

I'm curious to see how they do it.  The idea here - that each state is responsible to its citizens, not to outsiders - is so obviously reasonable that I never understood the argument against it.


The argument against it is that right wing nudnikssssss like Alex Jones can't pepper other states with never-ending FOIA requests.
 
2013-04-30 09:45:29 AM  

RexTalionis: I'm sure that there's a Tea Party blog out there who are going to use this as evidence that the Supreme Court is conspiring against them for filing FOIA requests for Obama's REAL birth certificate.


okay?  So?

How high is the bar for someone to have a blog today?  Do you need a license?  Party approval?  Win an election?
 
2013-04-30 09:47:46 AM  

RedPhoenix122: I'm curious to see how they do it. The idea here - that each state is responsible to its citizens, not to outsiders - is so obviously reasonable that I never understood the argument against it.

My only argument against it is if you move out of state, but still need information from the time you lived there, if they would be cooperative or not.


Why didn't this apply?

Article 4 Section I: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
 
2013-04-30 09:49:18 AM  
Meh. Pay a guy in Virginia to make the request.
 
2013-04-30 09:49:31 AM  
What's the difference between being a citizen and a resident of a state?
 
2013-04-30 09:51:10 AM  

RedPhoenix122: mattharvest: cman: Unanimous decision. Inb4 someone brings partisan bullshiat to this thread

I'm curious to see how they do it.  The idea here - that each state is responsible to its citizens, not to outsiders - is so obviously reasonable that I never understood the argument against it.

My only argument against it is if you move out of state, but still need information from the time you lived there, if they would be cooperative or not.


That's my only complaint about the ruling: apparently one of the litigants is a guy who needs records for a divorce proceeding. The other litigant just wants the information to compile/sell statistical information if I recall: they can deal with having to hire a local to file for the information.
 
2013-04-30 09:52:04 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: "limit your freedom to information"

wtf does that even mean?

how do you have freedom to information?


An Act to amend section 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 324, of the Act of June 11, 1946 (60 Stat. 238), to clarify and protect the right of the public to information, and for other purposes.


Normally I'd ask how anyone could be at once so ignorant and yet so strongly opinionated and outspoken, but, well... this is you we're dealing with here.

=Smidge=

 
2013-04-30 09:52:08 AM  

Muta: RedPhoenix122: I'm curious to see how they do it. The idea here - that each state is responsible to its citizens, not to outsiders - is so obviously reasonable that I never understood the argument against it.

My only argument against it is if you move out of state, but still need information from the time you lived there, if they would be cooperative or not.

Why didn't this apply?

Article 4 Section I: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.


I am most likely very wrong but I think it also ties into the fact that a citizen of one state cannot sue an actual state that they do not live in.
 
2013-04-30 09:54:20 AM  

RexTalionis: I'm sure that there's a Tea Party blog out there who are going to use this as evidence that the Supreme Court is conspiring against them for filing FOIA requests for Obama's REAL birth certificate.


And I'm sure you'll put as much effort into finding it to back up your disparaging remarks as you did thinking of a way to twist a ruling having nothing to do with the Tea Party into a way to attack them.
 
2013-04-30 09:55:21 AM  

Smidge204: tenpoundsofcheese: "limit your freedom to information"

wtf does that even mean?

how do you have freedom to information?

An Act to amend section 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 324, of the Act of June 11, 1946 (60 Stat. 238), to clarify and protect the right of the public to information, and for other purposes.
Normally I'd ask how anyone could be at once so ignorant and yet so strongly opinionated and outspoken, but, well... this is you we're dealing with here.


You are cute when you attack people.
I asked about the phrase "limit you freedom TO information"

I didn't ask about a limiting FOIA requests.
 
2013-04-30 09:55:38 AM  

MyRandomName: RexTalionis: I'm sure that there's a Tea Party blog out there who are going to use this as evidence that the Supreme Court is conspiring against them for filing FOIA requests for Obama's REAL birth certificate.

And I'm sure you'll put as much effort into finding it to back up your disparaging remarks as you did thinking of a way to twist a ruling having nothing to do with the Tea Party into a way to attack them.


bawwww
 
2013-04-30 09:58:20 AM  

Grungehamster: RedPhoenix122: mattharvest: cman: Unanimous decision. Inb4 someone brings partisan bullshiat to this thread

I'm curious to see how they do it.  The idea here - that each state is responsible to its citizens, not to outsiders - is so obviously reasonable that I never understood the argument against it.

My only argument against it is if you move out of state, but still need information from the time you lived there, if they would be cooperative or not.

That's my only complaint about the ruling: apparently one of the litigants is a guy who needs records for a divorce proceeding. The other litigant just wants the information to compile/sell statistical information if I recall: they can deal with having to hire a local to file for the information.


Wouldn't records for a divorce proceeding fall under the already established laws and rules regarding legal discovery? Why would it be a Freedom of Information request? Serious question.
 
2013-04-30 10:03:26 AM  

Muta: RedPhoenix122: I'm curious to see how they do it. The idea here - that each state is responsible to its citizens, not to outsiders - is so obviously reasonable that I never understood the argument against it.

My only argument against it is if you move out of state, but still need information from the time you lived there, if they would be cooperative or not.

Why didn't this apply?

Article 4 Section I: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.


Full Faith and Credit just means that no state can refuse to recognize the authority of any legal documents from a different state (except in the case of the unconstitutional mess that is DOMA.) This doesn't give universal access to records, just says that states can't pick and choose what records they want to accept because of disagreements with that state.

Closest thing I can think of is that you cannot discriminate against members of other states (excise taxes on goods made in other states, for example) but the idea here is that "public" records is only public for those who have a compelling interest in the behavior of the state, not lookieloos from other states.
 
2013-04-30 10:05:39 AM  

Muta: RedPhoenix122: I'm curious to see how they do it. The idea here - that each state is responsible to its citizens, not to outsiders - is so obviously reasonable that I never understood the argument against it.

My only argument against it is if you move out of state, but still need information from the time you lived there, if they would be cooperative or not.

Why didn't this apply?

Article 4 Section I: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.


Because in that context, it just means that the records of one state would constitute a valid record in another state. For instance, your birth certificate in Arizona will be recognized by the state of Maine. It says nothing about accessibility of the files.
 
2013-04-30 10:09:11 AM  
They're planning on gutting the FOIA here in PA.  Because freedom.
 
2013-04-30 10:27:26 AM  

RexTalionis: Muta: RedPhoenix122: I'm curious to see how they do it. The idea here - that each state is responsible to its citizens, not to outsiders - is so obviously reasonable that I never understood the argument against it.

My only argument against it is if you move out of state, but still need information from the time you lived there, if they would be cooperative or not.

Why didn't this apply?

Article 4 Section I: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

Because in that context, it just means that the records of one state would constitute a valid record in another state. For instance, your birth certificate in Arizona will be recognized by the state of Maine. It says nothing about accessibility of the files.

'm sure that there's a left wing blog out there who are going to use this as evidence that the Supreme Court is conspiring against them for preventing something or something.  CONSPIRACY!  Bloggers!!

 
2013-04-30 10:27:44 AM  

qorkfiend: Grungehamster: RedPhoenix122: mattharvest: cman: Unanimous decision. Inb4 someone brings partisan bullshiat to this thread

I'm curious to see how they do it.  The idea here - that each state is responsible to its citizens, not to outsiders - is so obviously reasonable that I never understood the argument against it.

My only argument against it is if you move out of state, but still need information from the time you lived there, if they would be cooperative or not.

That's my only complaint about the ruling: apparently one of the litigants is a guy who needs records for a divorce proceeding. The other litigant just wants the information to compile/sell statistical information if I recall: they can deal with having to hire a local to file for the information.

Wouldn't records for a divorce proceeding fall under the already established laws and rules regarding legal discovery? Why would it be a Freedom of Information request? Serious question.


I don't remember the full details: maybe he is trying to protest a divorce court decision?

And I was thinking of the Commerce Clause as far as the tax thing.
 
2013-04-30 10:53:33 AM  
I was on the side of the plaintiffs under I heard the words "this could negatively affect dataminers and those trying to make money off public data."
 
2013-04-30 11:08:17 AM  
Yawn.  Sounds like a business opportunity to me.  Set up your own business as a proxy for out-of-state FOIA requests, profit.
 
2013-04-30 11:14:41 AM  

BunkoSquad: I didn't think this was that big a deal, but submitter's ominous use of "citizen" at the end of the headline is making me wonder what else I've been wrong about


I just want to state for the record that anyone who uses the term "citizen" in a non-ironic way, trying to sound ominous about an impending 1984 fascist state, sounds like a douchebag.
 
2013-04-30 11:15:41 AM  

mattharvest: cman: Unanimous decision. Inb4 someone brings partisan bullshiat to this thread

I'm curious to see how they do it.  The idea here - that each state is responsible to its citizens, not to outsiders - is so obviously reasonable that I never understood the argument against it.


Now ask them to declare that said citizens are the only ones who can fund in-state political races, and watch them flip that sentiment on its head.
 
2013-04-30 11:17:16 AM  
Maybe a business opportunity here; Publishing companies could setup a service to retrieve and re-sell said info.
 
2013-04-30 11:29:12 AM  

Rootus: Yawn.  Sounds like a business opportunity to me.  Set up your own business as a proxy for out-of-state FOIA requests, profit.


I am sure that any attorney in the state is already equipped to do this, and the fact that this could generate even more employment for lawyers had nothing to do with a bunch of lawyers deciding that they were OK with this.
 
2013-04-30 11:36:15 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: "limit your freedom to information"

wtf does that even mean?

how do you have freedom to information?


And yet I'll wager you mock Obama for his "most transparent administration ever" claim.
 
2013-04-30 11:36:38 AM  

monoski: Maybe a business opportunity here; Publishing companies could setup a service to retrieve and re-sell said info.


And then when somebody lets others know whats in that info have the federal government press so many absurd charges they are looking at 50+ years in federal prison......
 
2013-04-30 11:38:25 AM  
You know what they ought to limit access to? Arrest records. Conviction records, fine. People get arrested for bullshiat reasons all the time, yet there is your mug shot, forever, even if the charges are dismissed/you are found guilty.
 
2013-04-30 11:45:24 AM  
So basically, the law hold no water.
Well, that pretty much sums up the direction this country has gone. Laws are not for you, just against you.
 
2013-04-30 11:46:22 AM  
And neither is SCOTUS.
 
2013-04-30 12:00:29 PM  

Car_Ramrod: BunkoSquad: I didn't think this was that big a deal, but submitter's ominous use of "citizen" at the end of the headline is making me wonder what else I've been wrong about

I just want to state for the record that anyone who uses the term "citizen" in a non-ironic way, trying to sound ominous about an impending 1984 fascist state, sounds like a douchebag, citizen.

 
2013-04-30 12:05:09 PM  
THIS IS AN OUTR... no, actually that's pretty reasonable and it seems like the complaintants are just being whiny biatches for no reason after the state went out of its way to help them get what they wanted.

I mean, even for the excluded bits they just need to fill out the form and give some college student a sixer of beer and twenty bucks to file it for them from in-state, it's not like the information is classified, the state just isn't going to do your legwork for you if you don't pay taxes.
 
2013-04-30 12:16:54 PM  

cman: Unanimous decision. Inb4 someone brings partisan bullshiat to this thread


Unanimous decisions are usually right and complaints usually just based in ignorance.
 
2013-04-30 12:20:24 PM  
So does that mean that people living in Virginia can now hire themselves out as FOIA proxies for out-of-staters?

I wonder how much they should charge...
 
2013-04-30 12:36:37 PM  

RexTalionis: Meh. I've got no problems with limiting a state's FOIA requests to residents and the media, to be honest with you. And if you really have such a problem with it, it's not hard to get around it - you can just hire a somebody in-state to file the FOIA request for you.


/Troll begin/
So the gubment's creating jobs by your plan? Logically impossible. Error! Error!
/Troll end/

Why did the state fight this all the way to the Supremes when the guy could get the info so easily anyway? Some pompous Southern state's rights pride? Waste of tax dollars closing one door when there's still an open one right next to it that can't be closed. It's not as if the law compelled Virginia to deny the request.

Well, so long as lawyers got paid. It's a rough economy and our upper class got needs.
 
2013-04-30 01:02:24 PM  

RedPhoenix122: My only argument against it is if you move out of state, but still need information from the time you lived there, if they would be cooperative or not.


This.  I hope they said something about that in the decision.
 
2013-04-30 01:08:22 PM  

flondrix: RedPhoenix122: My only argument against it is if you move out of state, but still need information from the time you lived there, if they would be cooperative or not.

This.  I hope they said something about that in the decision.


I doubt you have to file a FOIA related to anything about yourself, even if you still live in-state.
 
2013-04-30 01:35:32 PM  

Car_Ramrod: BunkoSquad: I didn't think this was that big a deal, but submitter's ominous use of "citizen" at the end of the headline is making me wonder what else I've been wrong about

I just want to state for the record that anyone who uses the term "citizen" in a non-ironic way, trying to sound ominous about an impending 1984 fascist state, sounds like is a douchebag.


FTFY, citizen.
 
2013-04-30 02:13:00 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: I asked about the phrase "limit you freedom TO information"

I didn't ask about a limiting FOIA requests.


You could reword it a bit and say "your right to information" and have the same meaning. Does that make it better?
=Smidge=
 
2013-04-30 02:29:20 PM  

vygramul: flondrix: RedPhoenix122: My only argument against it is if you move out of state, but still need information from the time you lived there, if they would be cooperative or not.

This.  I hope they said something about that in the decision.

I doubt you have to file a FOIA related to anything about yourself, even if you still live in-state.


Yeah, that isn't the sort of thing you need to FOIA for.  I was able to get copies of my old driving records when I moved to a new state.  There's procedures in place for just about every form of documentation that you'd need.

I'm interested in knowing exactly what information was requested by the guy going through divorce, maybe Internet usage records or something not normally supplied by the state?
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report