>In reality many judges are political hacks, and cowards that will rule in line with their political backers when it matters. This has been true for as long as humans have lived in civilization. Laws like this just give them more cover.
The law in question[0], in part, requires:
"The bill amends the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) to exclude from the definition of a government (i.e., public) record the portion of any document which discloses the home address of any active or retired 1) judge, 2) prosecutor or 3) law enforcement officer.
Further, the bill prohibits government agencies, individuals and businesses from knowingly publishing on the internet, or otherwise making available, the home address or unpublished home telephone number of any active or retired judge or any active or retired prosecutor."
Now there's certainly an argument to be made that such restrictions, if we are to have them, should be much, much, broader, given the harassment (including SWATting[1]) of other folks outside the specific job functions mentioned in the law.
I'm trying to view your comment in the best possible light, but I keep coming back to the last sentence:
"Laws like this just give them more cover."
How, exactly, do you mean that restricting access to the home addresses of such folks "gives them more cover?"
Is it your assertion that judges and other folks should have their home addresses available as some sort of extra-legal check on their authority?
What purpose does that serve? So that those who disagree with such people can go over to their house with a fruit basket and calmly discuss how their decision was incorrect and caused harm?
That seems pretty unlikely. As such, I'm forced to interpret your statement as:
"We should publish the home addresses of these people so they can be harassed, threatened, assaulted or killed if they make decisions I disagree with."
If I misunderstand you, please explain and accept my apologies.
In a democracy we are ruled by consent. I fundamentally oppose secrecy for those in power. We are not afforded such privilege as citizens. There are existing laws, that would severely punish anyone harassing a judge. But a judge is part of the community. Judges need to be accountable to the communities they rule in. If they do something that would result in a violent mob showing up at their house.
Like for example, overturn an election unjustly. Then we are already down the path of severe political instability.
The machinery of the state is set up to protect judges. If judges are being tracked down and killed in large numbers. Then its a sure sign that the state is failing too. In such a case, I would rather that the state fail quickly.
Having secret judges, secret tribunals, or anonymous judges, would only make oppression easier. This is what dictatorships do.
And your logic would equally fit any politician, as most have received death threats. And some have been harassed at their homes.
> If judges are being tracked down and killed in large numbers. Then its a sure sign that the state is failing too. In such a case, I would rather that the state fail quickly.
Oh right, so what you are saying is that once the killin starts, you hope it ramps up fast!
Like the other commenter said, I hope I don't live near you.
You make a bunch of valid points. Thanks for clarifying.
>Having secret judges, secret tribunals, or anonymous judges, would only make oppression easier. This is what dictatorships do.
But I don't really get what you mean by this. We don't have secret or anonymous judges. And anyone who wants to address any particular judge knows exactly where to find them -- at the relevant courthouse.
In fairness, we do have the FISA court, whose proceedings are secret (and I don't like that one bit), but the judges who sit on the FISA court aren't anonymous or "secret." And again, if someone has an issue with any of those judges, they can just go to the relevant court and do so.
Going to people's homes to intimidate or harm them or their families is repugnant to me personally and to a free society in general.
You said that "Laws like this just give them more cover."
Are you advocating that people go to people's homes to intimidate, threaten and harm people and/or their families as a check on how they deal with others?
That sounds a lot like the vigilantism you appear to decry.
Or are you claiming that we live in a failed state, so any actions taken against public figures is not only acceptable, but encouraged?
I guess the tl;dr is that you didn't answer my question. Will you do so now?
The law in question[0], in part, requires:
"The bill amends the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) to exclude from the definition of a government (i.e., public) record the portion of any document which discloses the home address of any active or retired 1) judge, 2) prosecutor or 3) law enforcement officer.
Further, the bill prohibits government agencies, individuals and businesses from knowingly publishing on the internet, or otherwise making available, the home address or unpublished home telephone number of any active or retired judge or any active or retired prosecutor."
Now there's certainly an argument to be made that such restrictions, if we are to have them, should be much, much, broader, given the harassment (including SWATting[1]) of other folks outside the specific job functions mentioned in the law.
I'm trying to view your comment in the best possible light, but I keep coming back to the last sentence:
"Laws like this just give them more cover."
How, exactly, do you mean that restricting access to the home addresses of such folks "gives them more cover?"
Is it your assertion that judges and other folks should have their home addresses available as some sort of extra-legal check on their authority?
What purpose does that serve? So that those who disagree with such people can go over to their house with a fruit basket and calmly discuss how their decision was incorrect and caused harm?
That seems pretty unlikely. As such, I'm forced to interpret your statement as:
"We should publish the home addresses of these people so they can be harassed, threatened, assaulted or killed if they make decisions I disagree with."
If I misunderstand you, please explain and accept my apologies.
If not, I hope I don't live anywhere near you.
[0] https://nj.gov/governor/news/news/562020/approved/20201120b....
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting