Althouse: "Wisconsin Court Broadens FOI Exception, Allowing Government Agencies To Deny Requests Based On Perceived Motive."

June 11, 2014

"Wisconsin Court Broadens FOI Exception, Allowing Government Agencies To Deny Requests Based On Perceived Motive."

"Call me overly suspicious, but I suspect there’s a lot of stuff the Deep State in Wisconsin, fresh from its shady assault on Republican donors, wants to keep buttoned up, and this is just an excuse to start on that."

15 comments:

YoungHegelian said...: WTF does the "perceived motive" have to do with the validity of a FOI request?

Citizens have the right to file FOI requests because 1) they pay the salaries of the government workers & 2) in a representative democracy, the voters have the right --- nay, the obligation -- to get themselves informed on the workings of the government that acts in their name.

Whether the citizen in question wants the FOI data to make the world safe for democracy or to line his birdcage is absolutely none of the government's business.; 6/11/14, 5:48 PM
garage mahal said...: In reality, the John Dough prosecutors want to open up the files and records of the investigation to the public. Guess who doesn't?; 6/11/14, 5:57 PM
Sam L. said...: Perceived motive: Them guys want to show we're crooked, and make us turn over incriminating evidence!

Pretty much shows "them guys" are right in asking.; 6/11/14, 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...: The way the headline is phrased, it almost sounds like the government considers it a crime to have the audacity to request information from them.

Public records are public records, getting hold of them should be easy. If it's feasible, anything subject to FOIA should just be posted online in an easy-to-find database within a reasonable time for public review.; 6/11/14, 8:40 PM
SGT Ted said...: Bought and paid for judge and ruling is what this is.

There isn't anything in the law that allows this ruling.; 6/11/14, 9:18 PM
Drago said...: cyrus83: "Public records are public records, getting hold of them should be easy"

LOL

What a delightfully quaint notion.

Don't you understand that all "laws" and policies will be bent by the left until they are unrecognizable? Preferably so far that they are utilized in ways diametrically opposite of the their original intent.; 6/11/14, 9:49 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: For the specific case in question, wherein an apparent stalker was seeking information about a stalkee, there was a legitimate point to be made about motive. However, surely that opinion should be tightly worded.; 6/11/14, 10:27 PM
Carnifex said...: Garage--Sure, We believe every word that dribbles out of your Obama sucking mouth. You should join C4 and just blame everything on the Joos. You'd have more credibility.; 6/12/14, 2:29 AM
Jaq said...: Holy Crap. That is scary.

Not new, but that it comes from a court. It reminds me of the climate scientist who said "Why should I give you my data when all you will do is try to find stuff wrong with it."; 6/12/14, 5:26 AM
Curious George said...: "garage mahal said...
In reality, the John Dough prosecutors want to open up the files and records of the investigation to the public. Guess who doesn't?"

Yes, the ones that have provided zero charges against Walker despite millions spent and months of investigations. But they don't want to provide their internal emails, the ones that could implicate them as the scumbag witch hunt grifters they are.; 6/12/14, 6:29 AM
Rusty said...: garage mahal said...
In reality, the John Dough prosecutors want to open up the files and records of the investigation to the public. Guess who doesn't?

dumbass

A convicted criminal was seeking public records of who filed restraining orders against him. An appeals court, fearing for the safety of the person who brought the order, denied the request.
Wasn't you was it?; 6/12/14, 7:16 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "For the specific case in question, wherein an apparent stalker was seeking information about a stalkee, there was a legitimate point to be made about motive."

-- It sucks if your information is public and wackadoos can do terrible things with it, but public information is just that: Public. If the stalker really does start stalking, we have laws to deal with that.; 6/12/14, 7:59 AM
damikesc said...: If the government can ignore FOI requests due to "perceived motive", then there is no FOI law in the first place.; 6/12/14, 9:31 AM
Fernandinande said...: Always keep in mind that judges are government lawyers.; 6/12/14, 10:01 AM
PatHMV said...: Before defending the public's "right to know" under the specific facts of this case, let's consider just how much information the government gathers about you, over which you have no control. Should your home address be public just because you have a drivers' license? Why does the public have a right to know that, just because government has administrative reasons for requiring it? Consider all the information that business owners, property owners, and others have to file with the government in order to get some blessing from the powers-that-be.

Government has become so pervasive in our daily lives, we do need to rethink whether ALL of that information should just be freely available to anybody who asks.

Now, if government restricted itself to what I see as its proper, limited scope, then that might not be such a problem. But with government invading every aspect of our lives, and collecting more and more personal information, I'm really not sure all that should be made public.

That said, I agree that reviewing the possible "motives" of the person seeking information is too problematic. If the information is public record, it should be made available to anybody. The probably scumbag in this specific set of facts could easily have gotten around this "motive" rule by hiring a lawyer to make the request on his behalf, or just getting a friend to ask in his place. The proper solution is to not make sensitive information public record to begin with.; 6/12/14, 2:54 PM