At 10:38 PM 5/19/2001 -0500, Mac Norton wrote:
>The problem is, the state has no right to keep you from
>getting my SSN, or eye color or hair color or height or
>penis length. But the state has no obligation to assist
>you in doing so. Cox says nothing, absolutely nothing,
>about compelled disclosures. Not a damn thing.
True. That's one of the reasons this case is different from the usual SSN
litigation, which is typically flavored as "Third party X wants to force
state agency to disclose SSN's which exist in their records" or "Citizen A
wants to prevent state agency from either collecting or disclosing Citizen
A's SSN".
In this case, the SSNs have already become matters of public record, by
their disclosure in other court files, so arguments about whether or not
disclosure is proper are irrelevant.
Now we're back in Cox territory, e.g., can the state prohibit journalists
from publishing information which has already been disclosed in open court
or via public records?
>Yes, Cox is clear, if any Whizzer White opinion can
>be said to be clear, which is doubtful. Talk about
>a guy who played football one too many times without
>a helmet, sheesh, Jerry Ford makes Whizzer look like
>a genius. Yeah, Cox is clear.
Do you have a plausible alternative interpretation of Cox on the question
of personal privacy interests in information revealed in open court files
or testimony? I spent awhile reading more current cases which cite Cox
yesterday and couldn't find any which questioned or disagreed with that
holding.
