So what’s the limiting principle you would use? That’s the problem. I no more care about Apple’s speeding violations than I do Joe Schmo’s, but I probably do care about whether Joe here has a criminal history if I’m interviewing him, and the nature of that history.
You could go by legal entity, just make lawsuits involving corporations public, and lawsuits between individuals private: but while Apple might have global influence, your rich and litigious neighbor in a rural county is probably a more immediate concern to you. Also individuals can sue corporations and corporations can sue individuals.
I’m still inclined to think court records should stay public, but I’m now more interested in seeing if there’s a kind of filter we can put on what we make public than I was two weeks ago.
* There are different levels of availability: For example, some court records could be public but not available outside the courthouse.
* Court records could be public by default, but take into account certain factors: Public interest, the power of the party, the vulnerability of the party. Criminal cases should probably be public - it is not dispute resolution (as with civil cases) but the government taking someone's freedom and/or property. The government's actions should be transparent.
I think I’m with you on the first one, but I think on point two you have too many heuristics that themselves would have to be litigated and eat into court time.
You could go by legal entity, just make lawsuits involving corporations public, and lawsuits between individuals private: but while Apple might have global influence, your rich and litigious neighbor in a rural county is probably a more immediate concern to you. Also individuals can sue corporations and corporations can sue individuals.
I’m still inclined to think court records should stay public, but I’m now more interested in seeing if there’s a kind of filter we can put on what we make public than I was two weeks ago.