I would advise close consideration of your opinion on this one.
Quote of note:
But what about the files of organized crime leaders and other nefarious characters? Even mobsters have mothers, fathers, spouses and children who could argue that their right to privacy would be harmed by the release of unfavorable government documents about their loved ones. Will the government now seek their permission before releasing files? And how can the media and the public make the case that documents they have not yet seen show government impropriety?
Supreme Court's ruling marks blow to public's right to know
Wed Apr 7, 6:40 AM ET
By Tony Mauro
The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) last week struck a blow for privacy at the expense of the public's right to know. Few people will disagree with how it ruled in the awful case before it, but the public should be very concerned about what the ruling could mean for the future.
The justices unanimously agreed with the Bush administration and with the family of Clinton White House aide Vince Foster that the government's graphic suicide-scene photographs of Foster should not be made public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The family has suffered enough, the court suggested. Five investigations have concluded that Foster died by his own hand in 1993, the court said as it dismissed the claims of conspiracy theorists who sought the release of the photos to prove that the probes were incomplete.
All true enough, and yet the Supreme Court's decision is still troubling because it ultimately could poke a major hole in the FOIA, which was enacted in 1966 to open government files to the public.
