Court Tells Georgia It Can’t Charge People to Read the Law

[RavenSky]

For decades, Georgia ignored this reality. Rather than make the text of the law freely available, the state pay-walled access to the statutes, court opinions, and annotations that make up its official law.

In 2013, a nonprofit called Public.Resource.Org paid for a copy of the state’s official code and posted it online for free. The state responded to this act of public service by suing the organization for copyright infringement. Rather than give in, Public.Resource.Org argued that Georgia law is in the public domain.

Along with a number of other groups, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief to support the nonprofit. We argued that the state cannot claim a copyright in its law because copyright vests only in the author of a work — in this case, the public — and because giving the state a private property right in the law would violate the public’s First Amendment right of access as well as principles of due process.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/court-tells-georgia-it-cant-charge-people-read-law

I am having a hard time believing they got away with this for decades. Wow.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I wonder if this is just due to the internet or if this has been the norm. I lived in Georgia for years but never really had any need to know anything in particular so never became aware of the issue. But like I said, that was before the internet. Would a clerk have demanded a fee prior to the internet? How did that work?

 

[Opoponax]

All of a state's laws should be online and readily accessible to the public for free. How can one be said to have proper notice of the law if they can't freely find out what the law is? Granted, the general requirement for being put on notice is that the given law/statute/code is in existence, but here it could be argued that the state is engaging in active impediment to notice. Or something along those lines.

 

[RavenSky]

All of a state's laws should be online and readily accessible to the public for free. How can one be said to have proper notice of the law if they can't freely find out what the law is? Granted, the general requirement for being put on notice is that the given law/statute/code is in existence, but here it could be argued that the state is engaging in active impediment to notice. Or something along those lines.

This is similar to what I was thinking when reading the article. If ignorance of the law is not a defense, then how can purposely preventing people from reading the law be allowed?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

What is discouraging is not that the laws were not available to the public before the internet, or after, but that the state tried to fight this. What the hell did these official douchebags want to achieve with such nonsense? Somebody needs to finger these morons so they can be ousted from their offices.

 

[Terrell]

All of a state's laws should be online and readily accessible to the public for free. How can one be said to have proper notice of the law if they can't freely find out what the law is? Granted, the general requirement for being put on notice is that the given law/statute/code is in existence, but here it could be argued that the state is engaging in active impediment to notice. Or something along those lines.

This is similar to what I was thinking when reading the article. If ignorance of the law is not a defense, then how can purposely preventing people from reading the law be allowed?

Carceral state. They don't want you to know all the laws, so if they think you're "inconvenient" they can find some reason to imprison you. It's unfair as hell, but can you really trust the government to be fair to those whose dissent is inconvenient to them? I don't. Another step towards "show me the man; I'll show you the crime".

 

[TV and credit cards]

Did they pay-wall the physical law libraries also? Is all not available there for free less copy charges? Reckon I'm missing something here if the state's argument was copyright.

 

[southernhybrid]

I've lived in Georgia for 25 years and was not aware of this. I just did a quick look and the state does have a website that lists all of the laws and it doesn't have a paywall. I don't know if that was just changed. But, I also found a private site that lists all of the laws in Georgia, and in ever other state, and describes them in very simple lay terms, as well as the penalties. It's all free. That was easier to navigate than the state site. So, I'm not sure what this is about. I never tried to find out anything about specific laws in the past, but after spending a few minutes on two sites, I'm learning all kinds of things.

 

[Deepak]

Did they pay-wall the physical law libraries also? Is all not available there for free less copy charges? Reckon I'm missing something here if the state's argument was copyright.

They were claiming that the annotated versions of the law, including references to opinions & cases, were something they held a copyright to. This isn't a case of charging fees for access or undue burdens on the state, but one where they were claiming ownership of the opinions and rulings that were produced by people working in official government positions.

Malamud payed the fee for accessing the materials, and mirrored that content online for people to access freely. That's the heart of the copyright claim - not that people want the law for free, but that the law was available for free but the GA government thinks they have some ownership stake in the content and can block Malamud from making it available for free.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I wonder if this is just due to the internet or if this has been the norm. I lived in Georgia for years but never really had any need to know anything in particular so never became aware of the issue. But like I said, that was before the internet. Would a clerk have demanded a fee prior to the internet? How did that work?

I move around the country a lot (almost annually lately...)
I also ride my bicycle to work in most places.
I always go look up bicycle statutes when I move someplace I'm unfamiliar with, because unlike most other traffic laws, they vary wildly from state to state, and some states have really kinda dumb laws. Not having them available online would potentially make all this a very difficult exercise. I'm surprised the GA got away with it for so long as well, particularly when police are so fond of telling people that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Talk about a ponzi scheme.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've lived in Georgia for 25 years and was not aware of this. I just did a quick look and the state does have a website that lists all of the laws and it doesn't have a paywall. I don't know if that was just changed. But, I also found a private site that lists all of the laws in Georgia, and in ever other state, and describes them in very simple lay terms, as well as the penalties. It's all free. That was easier to navigate than the state site. So, I'm not sure what this is about. I never tried to find out anything about specific laws in the past, but after spending a few minutes on two sites, I'm learning all kinds of things.

The main part of the law is available but it makes references to other things that aren't.