Administrative Law. Freedom of Information Act. File Classified "Top Secret" Is within National Security Exemption from the Act and Is Not Obtainable Unless the Classification Is Arbitrary and Unreasonable. Epstein v. Resor, 296 F. Supp. 214 (N. D. Cal. 1969)

1970 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 928 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act

scholarly journals Copyright Policymaking as Procedural Democratic Process: A Discourse Theoretic Perspective on ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarie Bridy
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The Public ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
College Of Law ◽  
Security Information ◽  
University Of Idaho

In Bring in the Nerds: Secrecy, National Security, and the Creation of Intellectual Property Law, David Levine juxtaposes two starkly different copyright policymaking processes: the closed international process that produced the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the relatively open domestic process that led quite dramatically to the scuttling of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). He reads the two processes against each other as a prelude to recommending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reform. The amendment to FOIA that Professor Levine proposes would open the international IP policymaking process to greater public scrutiny by creating a qualified public right to "foreign relations" national security information, which was systematically withheld from the public during the ACTA negotiations. This article, prepared for the Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal's 2012 Symposium, "Piracy and the Politics of Policing: Legislating and Enforcing Copyright Law," is a response to Professor Levine that draws on Jürgen Habermas' discourse theory of procedural democracy to examine the policymaking dynamics of ACTA and SOPA/PIPA and to assess the democracy-enhancing potential of the FOIA reform Professor Levine proposes.Annemarie BridyProfessor<http://www.uidaho.edu/law/faculty/annemariebridy>|University of Idaho College of Law|PO Box 83720-0051|Boise, ID 83720|Ph. 208.364.4583Affiliate Scholar<https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/annemarie-bridy>|Stanford Center for Internet and SocietyAffiliate Fellow<http://isp.yale.edu/people-directory?type=19>|Yale Information Society ProjectSSRN<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=630766>|HeinOnline<http://heinonline.org/HOL/AuthorProfile?collection=journals&search_name=Bridy,%20Annemarie&base=js>|LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/annemariebridy>|Twitter<https://twitter.com/AnnemarieBridy>

11. Giving Reasons for Decisions

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott ◽  
Jason Varuhas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Procedural Fairness ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Reasons For Decisions

This chapter examines the content and scope of the duty to give reasons, suggesting that giving reasons for decisions should be treated as a central facet of procedural fairness in administrative law. It first differentiates the duty to give reasons from the duty to give notice, the possibility of inferring unreasonableness from an absence of reasons, the proportionality doctrine, and the duty of candour. It then considers why reasons are required and goes on to discuss the duty to give reasons at common law. It also describes statutory duties and other duties to give reasons, paying attention to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Finally, it analyzes the question of whether a duty to give reasons has been discharged, and provides an overview of the remedial consequences of a breach of the duty to give reasons.

scholarly journals Where do FOIA responses live? Electronic Reading Rooms and web sources

2019 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Lisa DeLuca
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Government Information ◽  
Personal Privacy ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Electronic Reading ◽  
Google Search ◽  
The U.S

The Freedom of Information Act, FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552), generally provides any person with the statutory right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to government information in executive branch agency records. FOIA does not apply to the judicial or legislative branches of the U.S. government. This right to access is limited when information is protected from disclosure by one of FOIA’s nine statutory exemptions and exclusions.The “Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996” required that agencies needed to make eligible records available electronically. As a result, there are dozens of FOIA Libraries and Electronic Reading Rooms that are repositories for responses to agency FOIA requests. These documents are also known as responsive documents. Documents are often posted by agencies with redactions to protect personal privacy, national security, and other FOIA exemptions and exclusions. It is important for researchers, journalists, and citizens to use the terms “FOIA Libraries” and “Electronic Reading Rooms” as part of their search terminology. This will ensure they can find documents that might not be findable through a regular Google search.

The Shortcomings of Transparency for Democracy

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (11) ◽  
pp. 1670-1678
Author(s):  
Michael Schudson
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Government Information ◽  
Personal Privacy ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Information Transparency ◽  
Democratic Government ◽  
The U.S

“Transparency” has become a widely recognized, even taken for granted, value in contemporary democracies, but this has been true only since the 1970s. For all of the obvious virtues of transparency for democracy, they have not always been recognized or they have been recognized, as in the U.S. Freedom of Information Act of 1966, with significant qualifications. This essay catalogs important shortcomings of transparency for democracy, as when it clashes with national security, personal privacy, and the importance of maintaining the capacity of government officials to talk frankly with one another without fear that half-formulated ideas, thoughts, and proposals will become public. And when government information becomes public, that does not make it equally available to all—publicity is not in itself democratic, as public information (as in open legislative committee hearings) is more readily accessed by empowered groups with lobbyists able to attend and monitor the provision of the information. Transparency is an element in democratic government, but it is by no means a perfect emblem of democracy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document