Man Posts Laws Online: State of Georgia Sues - Calls Man A Terrorist

From what I understand, the publisher of the law books puts the annotations in. It's copyrighted material. I suspect the publisher made a formal complaint to the Georgia AG and that's why the state is pursuing the suit. The defendant doesn't have a chance. And judges and lawyers should be able to use annotated material any way they please and not be answerable to the public.

a reply to: alonzo730

You want Judges and Lawyers to be able to use proprietary information in a public court? Proprietary information that is behind a pay wall? Proprietary information that, if not accessed by a defendant could theoretically hamper his or her ability to mount an effective defense?

Am I reading that correctly?

a reply to: Hefficide

I've been thinking about this a lot. Call me backward but I think that if laws should part of the public forum, annotations or not. If we have to live by them the written version should be made available for free.

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: Hefficide

I've been thinking about this a lot. Call me backward but I think that if laws should part of the public forum, annotations or not. If we have to live by them the written version should be made available for free.

It is in every state you can get a copy of the laws and regulations for free. If you want someone to explain it to you then you would have to pay. This could be by hiring a lawyer or buying copies of law books. Then of course there is online resources like west law where they will explain the law for a fee. This is why this guy is being sued he takes others explinations of the law posts it online without getting their permission. As I said before its no different then a local paper deciding to grab a movie review from a writer without paying or asking permission. The person can review the movie themselves and not pay him or they can use his review of the movie and they need to reimburse him.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: alonzo730

You want Judges and Lawyers to be able to use proprietary information in a public court? Proprietary information that is behind a pay wall? Proprietary information that, if not accessed by a defendant could theoretically hamper his or her ability to mount an effective defense?

Am I reading that correctly?

No such thing. Any career has aids to help them they aren't free doctors use medical data basses they pay for. By your logic all that research material the company assembled for the doctor the company should do for free. There are plenty of jobs where a company created information to help people do their job better. Before online databases lawyers had to buy several copies of different law books. These companies will set you up with the original laws they mail you updates as the laws change all for a fee. Every month law firms receive new pages to add into their books to replace pages or add pages.

This is how the law works as a lawyer you decide what company you want to use. Then they explain new laws as they come out. Every company has different explinations on the law depending on what they think is important stealing their work they did is wrong.

a reply to: Hefficide

First of all, S+upsidedownflag. Second, I have heard some outrageous things in my time, but wow. When did opposing and circumventing a capitalist system for the good of its citizenry become a crime? This is no different in my mind than blatantly saying, "We don't want people who can't afford it to be able to legally defend themselves." This bothers me. I will however, become significantly more concerned when they stop using ridiculous loopholes and accusations and just start outright saying "because we can and you can't stop us."