SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the ignorance-is-no-excuse-under-the-law...but-if-you-cannot-find-out-what-the-law-IS... dept.
This week, open and equitable access to the law got a bit closer. For many years, EFF has defended Public.Resource.Org in its quest to improve public access to the law — including standards, like the National Electrical Code, that legislators and agencies have made into binding regulations. In two companion lawsuits, six standards development organizations sued Public Resource in 2013 for posting standards online. They accused Public Resource of copyright infringement and demanded the right to keep the law behind paywalls.
Yesterday, three of those organizations dropped their suit. The American Educational Research Association (AERA), the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), and the American Psychological Association (APA) publish a standard for writing and administering tests. The standard is widely used in education and employment contexts, and several U.S. federal and state government agencies have incorporated it into their laws.
[...] Three other standards development groups (the American Society for Testing and Materials, the National Fire Protection Association, and the American Society for Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers) continue to pursue their suit against Public Resource. We're confident that the court will rule that laws are free for all to read, speak, and share with the world.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Saturday October 17 2020, @11:19PM (2 children)
Absolutely agree!
Laws ARE public domain, by definition.
Submission of anything to be written into law, at least in my book, implies the work to become public.
As the public, by definition, must now comply with the letter of the LAW.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 18 2020, @04:19AM (1 child)
It's nice that we all (who are discussing this) live in places where the rule of law generally prevails. There are still large parts of the world where there is no rule of law, where rule of the strong prevails and is capricious*. Feel free to correct me, I wasn't a very good student in civics (long ago), but I believe that the concept of the rule of law, written laws available to the public and enforced more or less uniformly, is relatively new in human history.
*given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 18 2020, @01:49PM
OK, let's check our privilege, acknowledge how lucky we are to live in a place that's actually civilized, and observe a moment of silence to honor the victims of lawless places subject to the capricious whim of strongmen rulers.
Now -- what again was your point? That because living in a civilized society is a relatively new thing, historically speaking, it should be ok for private entities to charge extortionate fees for access to legal precepts that we're all subject to? Because the alternative (having free access to the letter of the law you're subject to) is so new, meaning we're being privileged undeserving brats to expect it?
Or were you just virtue signaling? :)