Slashdot Mirror
Teenager Wins Email Suit Against City of Kokomo
An anonymous reader writes "Recently, a 16 year old sued the city of Kokomo, Indiana for access to an email list that he suspected the mayor was mis-using for political purposes. Despite the mayor's refusal to give in, the teenager won the case. The city will have to pay not only for the expensive attorneys they hired, but may have to compensate the 16 year old's pro-bono counsel."
My suggestion for a better headline: "American discovers balls"
Now if only the rest of the country could get around to holding their political leaders accountable for their misdeeds.
Beyond the knee-jerk reaction, which would be "yay for the student, and peoples rights" in my case, I kind of think the city has a point, even if it isn't justified in law. I certainly don't want government institiutions making it easy for people to get such lists out of them, although it should be possible.
Oh no... it's the future.
The laws that are the basis for this are evident in the article. It's an issue of public record. In the interests of the people, many government documents are public record. Mailing addresses are protected to prevent abuse, but e-mail addresses are not. More than likely, they should be, just like mailing addresses. However, it's not really the place of the courts to say, "Well, this *should* be protected, but it isn't, so we'll rule as if it is."
So the case they're faced with is that someone asked for a copy of a public record and the city tried to make it difficult with the intent of preventing the person from obtaining the list. They didn't tell him he had to hand-copy it because they didn't have it in electronic form. They did it with the intent of making it unreasonably difficult to acquire a copy of the list, which directly opposes the spirit of the law regarding public record.
The appropriate step is legislative. Extend to e-mail addresses the same protections as mailing addresses.
"Pro bono" on the other hand is short for pro bono publicum -- "for the good of the public".
It's a quaint idea, doing something because it's the right thing to do. I don't doubt that increased notoriety is an incentive for pro bono work, although many pro bono cases are ones that will never garner much attention. In this case, I think the judge was eager to punish the defendant, and ordered the pro bono attorney's fees calculated so he'd have an excuse for making the punishment heavier.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
After reading TFA, is seems to me the whole thing was about who gets to be lazy. The city officials said that he could have the list, but he had to hand copy it himself. He sued to get them to just give him a copy of the list, and compensate his lawyer.
I can sort of see his point. He was comparing two lists: a city newsletter, and one the mayor was using to build up political support. If he hand copied it, they could alway say he made a mistake or changed it, there would be no tracability. But an actual, official copy couldn't be denied. Now I understand why the mayor didn't want to give it out. It was a case of CYA.
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.