Janie Boschma

When it comes to democracy, more often than not, the key is open government. After all, the government is “of the people, by the people and for the people,” and without open access to government records, how can we as people keep tabs on how our elected officials are running the system? Yet, there always seems to be a conflict between the public’s right to know and an individual’s right to privacy.

Last month, state Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, introduced a bill that would limit the public’s access to Wisconsin’s online Consolidated Court Automation Programs in an attempt to protect people’s privacy and prevent abuse of the system, according to an Associated Press article. The bill would allow only police, judges, prosecutors and reporters to log on to the site. Anyone else would have to request special permission from district attorneys or court clerks.

Michael Schoenfield, a Schneider spokesman, said these citizens, including potential employers or landlords, could still obtain permission to access the site by going to their local clerk of courts office and filling out a free application in which they would have to specify their reason for wanting access to the online database.

I’m from Wisconsin Rapids and usually support Schneider on most issues. In fact, I voted for him in the last local election, but when I first read the AP article, I, like many other people around the state, found myself screaming, “What about freedom of information?” However, after talking to Schoenfield and reading the actual bill, I believe, for the most part, this has the potential to be a good thing.

If someone’s name pops up on the system, people automatically assume the worst, not looking at whether the person is innocent or guilty, Schneider said in the article. Last year, court officials began adding disclaimers to case records, indicating whether the court found the person innocent or guilty, but Schneider said this wasn’t enough.

For example, Schneider cited the case of one Chippewa Falls man who was the subject of a restraining order in March 2006. While a judge dropped the order two months later, the man said he still has trouble finding women to date him because the site does not post a disclaimer on the front page of his electronic case file.

No matter what the alleged crime – whether it is a homicide case or a traffic citation – Schoenfield said people just assume the worst about the person. Once, Schoenfield said, he talked to a man who had contemplated committing suicide becuase of CCAP.

“He was found innocent, (but) his life was destroyed as he put it because people abuse the system.”

Because the bill would not – and could not – constitutionally restrict anyone’s access to the hard-copy records themselves, it is not a violattion of open-records laws but rather a loss of convenience. Plus, those interested in using the online database could gain access at their local courthouse.

While I do agree with the bill’s limit on who has immediate access to the site, the public also has a responsibility to use the system wisely and not abuse it. For parents to type in the name of their child’s boyfriend or girlfriend out of their own curiousity is just ridiculous.

I once talked to a clerk at the Eau Claire Police Department who told me there is a difference between “public interest” and “public interesting.” In the simplest sense, I agree with that statement. But often times what the police department thinks is “public interesting” really is in the “public interest.” I applaud Schneider’s effort to support what Schoenfield called “legitimate journalists,” or those who are “members of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, the Wisconsin Broadcaster Association and any other Wisconsin media organization designated by the director of state courts,” according to the bill, which currently sits in committee.

While the bill does not specify who would decide what constitutes “legitimate press,” Schoenfield said that burden would probably lie with the courts themselves.

“Where does society’s need to end and a person’s privacy begin? That’s a difficult question,” he said.

This brings on the even larger issue of what constitutes being a “journalist.” As society changes to one that is more accepting of blogs as news sources, traditional reporters with degrees in journalism will have to work with bloggers and the public. They will have to redefine and restructure the currently held beliefs in the face of a world in which everyone can become a published reporter of news and events.

While I like the thoery behind the idea Schneider presents in the bill and think it would solve a lot of problems with the abuse of the system. But the possible controversy over who is a “legitimate journalist” and the simple concept of limiting access to the general public also have the potential to cause more problems than it’s worth.