Slashdot Mirror
Using the FOIA
mgaiman writes "Lucy Dalglish, Executive Director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, spoke at my school today. She discussed the state of journalism in the post-9/11 world. She said, among other things, that this administration is the most closed she has seen since Nixon. The organization itself is a non-profit journalist rights group. Their site features such things as Homefront Confidential, a chronicling of changes to the openness of information since 9/11, and a guide to using the Federal FOI Act to get access to information. While most /.ers aren't journalists, I thought it would be of interest nonetheless."
I find this type of claim more than a bit disingenuous. What she might be complaining about is that her job is harder to do with this administration. Gee - someone who can keep a secret in Washington. What a novel concept!
Now there is no doubt that things have tightened up since 9-11, but they have too! We're technically at war with Al Qaeda (forget Iraq for the moment.) Ever seen the posters in the WWII movies - "Loose lips sink ships?" There IS something to the whole idea.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
There were 3000 Americans killed on American soil. To expect things to remain "like they were" is not going to happen. After Pearl Harbor, Japanese in American were rounded up into camps. That's not going to happen in this instance (nor should it,) but we can't stick our heads in the sand either and just hope it will all go away. Besides, people like this "journalist" seem to have ulterior motives all the time anyway. I wonder how much gnashing of teeth there would be if those 3000 dead were the creme-de-la-creme of the Hollywood elite? BC
From replies, I can see that almost nobody understands the concept of freedom of information. It's actually quite simple, altough mind-boggling for some.
What it means, in short, is that all information generates or kept by the government is public, to be supplied to anyone who asks. No ifs or ands, (altough a single but).
The "but" is: The governmente can refuse to supply some information on several grounds, all of which are clearly stated in the law.
In other words, the burden of proof is on them to show that they can't give you the information because it's forbidden by law. Not the other way around. You are entitled to the information, and you don't even have to say why you want it.
Of course, the basic flaw is that the law presumes that the governmente should be willing to give the info. In an ideal world, that would be the case. Alas, this will never be an ideal case.
By the way, to all you jingoist idiots talking about the "war on Al-Qaeda", a few basic facts:
- You cannot be at "war with Al-Qaeda" anymore that you can be at war with the Red Cross. Al-Qaeda is not a country. Now, go read the Constitution (or at least a dictionary).
- Two buildings destroyed and a few thousand dead. And you want to give a blank check to your president to bypass Congress and violate your basic right. You are not only stupid, you are pathetic.
- I am not flaming. I'm describing as objectively as possible.