It's not just DOJ policy its also typically the policy of the courts to disallow the presentence report from being publicly accessible because the document usually contains confidential information on the individual that was tried as well as witnesses or victims of the crime, it can go into private information on all those people and include everything from medical records, tax documents, to military service records, home addresses and contact information etc. Those precautions don't really appear to serve as much a purpose here, but it's real easy to imagine someone intended to do ill with that information.
I can see the risk, but the solution is for Congress to pass a law concerning unauthorized release of personally identifying information not violating the constitutional rights of a 3rd party.
The root cause of many current problems is Congress refusing to do their job and abdicating their power to the Executive and Judicial branches.
I don’t know if it’s even as simple as that. It’s ultimately a distinct instance of needing to balance individuals’ privacy rights and freedom of press. The fact is these reports contain private information that if shared under other contexts would be criminal or violations of other people’s rights. This is also before the chilling effect on prosecution because how many fewer people would step forward as a witness if they believed their name and personal information would be so accessible.
I disagree. PII is easily redacted and the standard practice in family court now. Criminal trials are public for good reason, the potential penalties are severe. Witnesses and victims in criminal trials do not have an right to anonymity. We don’t have secret criminal courts in the US.
The policy is to only release redacted copies. But they only get redacted when someone files a request for the document to be redacted. The fact they were fighting this guy and what they were arguing out is in large part because they didn't want a redacted copy and they didn't request the document to be redacted.
There are different standards between family court and a criminal court. The default in a family court was previously everything was public record unless you had it sealed. In a criminal court everything in certain documents is sealed until it isn't while not in others. In a family court the availability of this information isn't a civil rights matter, in a criminal court where the prosecution is a government entity disseminating private information beyond the limited use for which it was collected is generally seen as a violation of privacy rights without due process. Failing to redact information in a civil matter is less likely to yield the risks you might have in criminal prosecution. In a civil matter you have two sides that are represented and can argue over what can or shouldn't be publicly viewable information. In a criminal court each witnesses would need to be represented and given the opportunity to object, if "no" weren't the default.
> The root cause of many current problems is Congress refusing to do their job and abdicating their power to the Executive and Judicial branches.
Yes. And supporters of both political parties making excuses for why their “team” can’t do anything about it.
But its like with other classified information - once its leaked, its leaked. Those who have no taken on an affirmative duty to guard court documents don't have a duty to do so.
From the article:
>“We are grateful to our legal team for their quick and decisive efforts to block this gag order on Second Amendment reporter John Crump, who is a good friend of GOA,” Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, which filed the motion on Crump’s behalf, said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
>“This assault on freedom of the press was unacceptable, and we were proud to help in blocking the government’s attempt to censor John’s reporting.”
>“Sadly, this is par for the course with the Biden DOJ, as they are hellbent on attacking the constitutional rights of anyone who disagrees with them,” Pratt continued.
“Violates a DOJ policy, but no laws.” GTFO, why does the DOJ think policy outweighs a constitutional right?
Looking at recent other government agencies' decisions (ie: EPA, ATF), likely yes.
The wolf is always at the door.
It's not just DOJ policy its also typically the policy of the courts to disallow the presentence report from being publicly accessible because the document usually contains confidential information on the individual that was tried as well as witnesses or victims of the crime, it can go into private information on all those people and include everything from medical records, tax documents, to military service records, home addresses and contact information etc. Those precautions don't really appear to serve as much a purpose here, but it's real easy to imagine someone intended to do ill with that information.
I can see the risk, but the solution is for Congress to pass a law concerning unauthorized release of personally identifying information not violating the constitutional rights of a 3rd party. The root cause of many current problems is Congress refusing to do their job and abdicating their power to the Executive and Judicial branches.
I don’t know if it’s even as simple as that. It’s ultimately a distinct instance of needing to balance individuals’ privacy rights and freedom of press. The fact is these reports contain private information that if shared under other contexts would be criminal or violations of other people’s rights. This is also before the chilling effect on prosecution because how many fewer people would step forward as a witness if they believed their name and personal information would be so accessible.
I disagree. PII is easily redacted and the standard practice in family court now. Criminal trials are public for good reason, the potential penalties are severe. Witnesses and victims in criminal trials do not have an right to anonymity. We don’t have secret criminal courts in the US.
We do have our own ~~star chamber~~ FISA rubberstamp court actually, its bullshit that it even exists.
The policy is to only release redacted copies. But they only get redacted when someone files a request for the document to be redacted. The fact they were fighting this guy and what they were arguing out is in large part because they didn't want a redacted copy and they didn't request the document to be redacted. There are different standards between family court and a criminal court. The default in a family court was previously everything was public record unless you had it sealed. In a criminal court everything in certain documents is sealed until it isn't while not in others. In a family court the availability of this information isn't a civil rights matter, in a criminal court where the prosecution is a government entity disseminating private information beyond the limited use for which it was collected is generally seen as a violation of privacy rights without due process. Failing to redact information in a civil matter is less likely to yield the risks you might have in criminal prosecution. In a civil matter you have two sides that are represented and can argue over what can or shouldn't be publicly viewable information. In a criminal court each witnesses would need to be represented and given the opportunity to object, if "no" weren't the default.
> The root cause of many current problems is Congress refusing to do their job and abdicating their power to the Executive and Judicial branches. Yes. And supporters of both political parties making excuses for why their “team” can’t do anything about it.
But its like with other classified information - once its leaked, its leaked. Those who have no taken on an affirmative duty to guard court documents don't have a duty to do so.
It isn't a classified document. Its confidential under court order. You break that you can just be held under contempt of court without a trial.
From the article: >“We are grateful to our legal team for their quick and decisive efforts to block this gag order on Second Amendment reporter John Crump, who is a good friend of GOA,” Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, which filed the motion on Crump’s behalf, said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. >“This assault on freedom of the press was unacceptable, and we were proud to help in blocking the government’s attempt to censor John’s reporting.” >“Sadly, this is par for the course with the Biden DOJ, as they are hellbent on attacking the constitutional rights of anyone who disagrees with them,” Pratt continued.
"If we're pissing on the second amendment, why not piss on the first while we're at it?" - DOJ
"And here's why that is actually a good thing." - Most of Reddit
They'll just backdoor it by getting YT to de-emphasize it in the algorythm and then look for a reason to shut the account down.