Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Governments Turn Tables By Suing Public Records Requesters (apnews.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the questions-are-a-burden-to-others dept.

schwit1 quotes the AP: Government bodies are increasingly turning the tables on citizens who seek public records that might be embarrassing or legally sensitive. Instead of granting or denying their requests, a growing number of school districts, municipalities and state agencies have filed lawsuits against people making the requests -- taxpayers, government watchdogs and journalists who must then pursue the records in court at their own expense.

The lawsuits generally ask judges to rule that the records being sought do not have to be divulged. They name the requesters as defendants but do not seek damage awards. Still, the recent trend has alarmed freedom-of-information advocates, who say it's becoming a new way for governments to hide information, delay disclosure and intimidate critics. "This practice essentially says to a records requester, 'File a request at your peril,'" said University of Kansas journalism professor Jonathan Peters, who wrote about the issue for the Columbia Journalism Review in 2015, before several more cases were filed. "These lawsuits are an absurd practice and noxious to open government."

4 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Good reasons and bad reasons. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Denying a FOI may be a good reason to do so. Such as protecting protecting confidential information. For example if you want the Medicaid Health Records of the guy who lives down the street, because you think he is a druggy.
    However information that shouldn't be denied is if it just happens to put the officials in a bad light. So they may had rushed that contract for the new building and went with a known vendor. While the reason to do so, is because the building needed to be built quickly, and the known vendor had a good track record for quality. However releasing this information will just mean for the person who approved it a bunch of extra problems, to defend his actions, and explanation on after the fact solution's. Now this is information that still should be available even if it puts someone who was trying to put the benefit of the community ahead of his own, but still we should know about this, as it could lead to abuse in the future and the person will be held accountable, even just politically.

    Politicians need to realize that they serve the community and their job there is at the privilege of the community. If they want him out, then their job is over.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Good reasons and bad reasons. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Denying a FOI may be a good reason to do so. Such as protecting protecting confidential information.

      Read about this a couple-three days ago.

      No, this is not so nefarious as wanting to keep things secret from the public. Suing the requester is a tactical move designed to make sure the government doesn't have to pay the requester's legal fees.

      If the requester sues the government to get release of the records, and wins, the government is on the hook for the requester's legal fees.

      If the government sues the requester and loses (same effect as previous case, in regards to the records in question), the government is NOT liable for the requester's legal fees.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Good reasons and bad reasons. by arth1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Filing lawsuits against the requester is akin to saying "there is no valid reason to deny the request, but I want to anyway"

      I can see a situation where it's "there is no legal reason to deny the request, but there likely should be". In a common law system, creating a precedent can be very helpful in cases where the law hasn't been established well enough yet. Like there may not be a prohibition against walking your pet alligator on a public sidewalk, but getting a judge to declare that alligators are inherently unsafe would allow a district to ban it.
      For FOIA requests, there may likewise be some areas where it's unclear. But what's wrong is suing the person who files the FOIA request, and expect them to front much of he costs of court proceedings. The filing should be against their own agency to prevent them from disseminating the information, if they think it's likely that a judge will rule against it being released.

  2. Re:Opening themselves up to trouble by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was just wondering that. Over here, judges tend to be VERY upset at people and organizations that obviously just waste their time and get VERY creative when it comes to getting back at them.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.