There is something almost surreal about the legislation sponsored by state Sen. Richard Stuart exempting Virginia’s judicial branch from any scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act. Neither Stuart nor any of those voting for the bill seem to be able to tender a rational explanation for it. Yet it has passed one committee and is headed for a floor vote. The best Stuart could come up with is to note that it’s not entirely clear what records are exempt from scrutiny. How exempting all records from scrutiny qualifies as a reasonable solution to this minor problem is mystifying.
Richmond Times-Dispatch
Sen. Richard Stuart, R-Stafford, says he thinks Virginia’s courts should set their own rules for what should be open to the public. We all know what would be the results of that. Courts would release very little information. All branches of government seem more interested in hiding information than in sharing it — because hiding information allows them also to hide their mistakes. It is specifically for this reason that the Freedom of Information Act exists. Left to their own devices — as this bill would allow — government agencies do not behave as champions of transparency.
The Daily Progress
Towns in Connecticut are worried about the cost of archiving, reviewing, and withholding law enforcement videos, and the Meriden Record-Journal reports that Cheshire’s town manager, Michael Milone, has urged the town’s delegation to the General Assembly to introduce legislation authorizing towns to charge fees for processing requests for access to videos. Charging such fees would nullify the point of police videos — accountability. If the public has to pay extra for accountability, police will have every incentive to make accountability expensive. Disclosing video is not expensive. Video is easily posted to the internet, and thousands of ordinary people do it every day. What is expensive is the time spent by government employees censoring video and other records, applying the exceptions to disclosure enumerated in Connecticut’s freedom-of-information law. The more exceptions to disclosure, the more censorship review and the less accountability.
Chris Powell, Journal Inquirer
Journalists are not immune to misunderstandings of the First Amendment, despite their self-evident interests in the functionality and well-being of a free press (and, indeed, their long and important efforts to protect speech and press freedoms). This comes up occasionally at First Amendment conferences I attend, and it’s understandable to a large extent because this area, as a legal specialty, is home to more than a few puzzling cases. I asked a dozen media law professors and attorneys what they consider common misunderstandings that journalists have about the First Amendment and media law. Eleven shared their thoughts with me.
Jonathan Peters, Columbia Journalism Review
Follow the bills we follow on VCOG 
“The reason we have laws like FOIA is so people can hold government accountable for statements.”
“Left to their own devices — as this bill would allow — government agencies do not behave as champions of transparency.”