Website turns tables on government officials

Boston Globe ^ | 7/4/2003 | Hiawatha Bray

[backhoe]

Thanks for looking- yes, you can drive yourself nuts with Information Overload... but it beats the old days of going to the library with a yellow notepad & a handfull of pencils, and then trying to inform everybody by snail mail of what your research has discovered...

[patj]

I think this idea has merit, but why stop at the government? Why not go all the way and do the same thing to reporters, columnists and other "elite" media types.?

[Cate]

uh, isn't pissing up a rope a bad thing to try? Speaking from a totally female point of view, this has got to be a guy thing... hahhahaa.

[Flyer]

rise above the stereotype of the provincial American yahoo

Someone is a yahoo because they can't pronounce 'Csikszentmihalyi'? My last name is much more simple and I still have to correct people.

[Cate]

What is their website address? So many bad items, so little time. Has Mia T been pinged? She could probably overload the website with her Clintonian info.

[R. Scott]

I hope their website address gets wide publicity.
If anyone knows it, please post it.

[TroutStalker]

http://opengov.media.mit.edu/

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

You are asking me for an argument to back up an assertion which I never made. I don't know why you think I made such an assertion, but if you go back and read my posts on this thread, I think you will see that I did not.

My point was that politicians may sue for libel if this site published lies about them. Your invocation of secret government files changes that not at all. I made no assertion that information in secret government files was "less damaging" than information published on a website; it is, however, true that one cannot sue for libel over secret information.

Clear?

[Psalm118]

REPEAT AFTER ME:

"Chee-Chant-Mee-HAH-li"

It's that simple.

[coloradan]

My posts were not asking you to back up any assertion that you had not made.

Instead, you wrote about the obviously damaging and actionable case of libel, which I do understand. My concern was and is, that a corresponding damage can arise from erroneous content in government files on us, from which we can obtain no redress. If there is some injustice in the publication of libel, there ought to be some injustice in the keeping of wrong information about us. That was my point; it was apparently misunderstood.

I believe that keeping secret files on us violates our right to petition for redress of grievances, because the secrecy itself prohibits us from even learning that an error may exist, yet that error may bring about special attention from government agents that interferes with one's ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

[alrea]

add university professors, attorneys, and government workers and you might have some real usable information

[staytrue]

I wonder if these guys think politicians can't sue for libel.

In practical terms, a politician CAN NOT sue for libel. I freeped Kathleen Kennedy Townsend in 2002 when I carried a sign that said "making a football", townsend is an idiot.

According to the dictionary definition of "idiot", she probably was not. However, I was pretty sure she would not sue for libel because of the negative publicity that would be drawn to a suit about her statement "made a football" (meaning "scoring a touchdown"). If she had sued me, it would have guaranteed a landslide victory for her oponent and would have made her look idiotic for suing me.

Furthermore, if you look at most politicians campaign ads and statements, they are pretty libelous themselves. Townsend said in one of her ads that "Ehrlich was too extreme for Maryland".

Besides, almost all politicians could be sued for breach of contract after you look at their campaign promises.

So practically speaking, I don't think policians can sue for libel without having egg on their faces.

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

Calling someone an "idiot" (defined in The American Heritage Dictionary as "a foolish or stupid person") is an expression of opinion, not a statement of fact. Anyone (not just a public figure) who sues over being called an idiot is an idiot, and I can't imagine that anyone has ever won a libel suit over being called an idiot.

If you'd held up a sign saying that she had been investigated for grand theft, or serial murder, or child molestation, she might well have sued you, and almost certainly would have won.

From the article: Starting today, the site will allow the public to submit information about government officials, and this information will be made available to anyone visiting the site. No effort will be made to verify the accuracy of the data.

If this site is going to publish any accusation made about public officials, the owners are courting libel suits.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Yeah, but it's even more useless for a woman to try!

[Enemy Of The State]

"They can call it FReeRepublic.com"

I hardly think so as I doubt that anyone will be ridiculed for the information that is posted and apparently they dont have moderators to ban you if you post something that they dont agree with.

[JohnnyZ]

I can just see the day when they start mapping out a government official's drive to work and grocery store and he gets assassinated. Idiots.

[meanspirit77]

Bravo!

[Feiny]

Is this where I can find my "PERMANENT RECORD?"

[R. Scott]

Thanks.