https://www.wcl.american.edu/secle/materials/Fall_2012/International_Right_to_Know_Day/TAB%208.Perceptions%20of%20Transparency%20of%20Government.pdf

Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: A cross- national study

/pdf/free-speech-and-its-relation-to-self-government-em0031g29a.pdf

Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government

Internet Information-Seeking and Its Relation to Support for Access to Government Records.

Although the term empirical research has become commonplace in legal scholarship over the past two decades, law professors have, in fact, been conducting research that is empirical - that is, learning about the world using quantitative data or qualitative information - for almost as long as they have been conducting research. For just as long, however, they have been proceeding with little awareness of, much less compliance with, the rules of inference, and without paying heed to the key lessons of the revolution in empirical analysis that has been taking place over the last century in other disciplines. The tradition of including some articles devoted to exclusively to the methododology of empirical analysis - so well represented in journals in traditional academic fields - is virtually nonexistent in the nation's law reviews. As a result, readers learn considerably less accurate information about the empirical world than the studies' stridently stated, but overconfident, conclusions suggest. To remedy this situation both for the producers and consumers of empirical work, this Article adapts the rules of inference used in the natural and social sciences to the special needs, theories, and data in legal scholarship, and explicate them with extensive illustrations from existing research. The Article also offers suggestions for how the infrastructure of teaching and research at law schools might be reorganized so that it can better support the creation of first-rate empirical research without compromising other important objectives.

The Rules of Inference

The surrender of secrecy : explaining the emergence of strong access to information laws in Latin America

The tension between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to obtain government-held information represents a conflict between two vital democratic values. The solution to resolving this tension lies in striking an appropriate balance between a person's need to be let alone and society's need to be informed. The crafters of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) intended to set such a balance when they created two privacy exemptions to the statute. In instances when the government refuses to release a record on privacy grounds, then a requester may turn to the courts to interpret what the law instructs. Consequently, the judiciary has significantly shaped the contours of the FOIA over the years. This article examines whether the Supreme Court's current FOIA-related privacy framework comports with the FOIA as reflected in its legislative history.

The Freedom of Information Act 1966–2006: A Retrospective on the Rise of Privacy Protection Over the Public Interest in Knowing What the Government's Up To

The Electronic Freedom of Information Act of 1996 amended the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 to clarify that computerized agency records are subject to disclosure under the FOIA. Congress passed the 1996 amendments because federal agencies for many years had been withholding computerized records and databases from the public. Another feature of the EFOIA requires agencies to publish their policies and rules on the Internet. The rationale behind this provision was to guard against the development of "secret law" known only to agency officials, but not to members of the public who deal with the agencies. The purpose of this article is to examine how federal agencies have complied with the EFOIA in its first few years of implementation. A look at the documented early history of EFOIA compliance reveals agency performance has been marked by slow starts, missed deadlines and general confusion over exactly what kinds of records qualify as disclosable records under the statute.

Speed Bumps On The Information Superhighway: A Study Of Federal Agency Compliance With The Electronic Freedom Of Information Act Of 1996

The framers of the Freedom of Information Act believed that in order to make informed decisions concerning self‐rule in the democracy, citizens needed access to government information. However, the law also acknowledges the importance of protecting privacy—two of the FOIA's exemptions allow federal agencies to withhold information that would invade the privacy of individuals. The purpose of this article is to explore the legal conflict between an individual's right to privacy and the public interest in disclosure of government information. In an examination of seven United States Supreme Court decisions on this subject, this article questions whether the Court has fairly balanced the conflicting values of access and privacy within the guidelines established by Congress in the FOIA.

Blurred vision: How supreme court FOIA opinions on invasion of privacy have missed the target of legislative intent

Legal commentators and journalists have debated for years whether the First Amendment provides the press with special rights of access to government information and facilities. The United States Supreme Court has consistently rejected arguments that such a constitutional right for newsgathering exists. This study examines the issue from a historical perspective. It looks at the question of whether there is historical evidence in the years immediately following ratification of the First Amendment to support the modern rationale that the press has a constitutional right of access to government.

Policy of Secrecy-Pattern of Deception: What Federalist Leaders Thought About a Public Right to Know, 1794-98

This article argues that the American judiciary should recognize a constitutional right of access to government information, or more forcefully a “right to know”, for purposes of achieving the self-government that was envisioned by the Founding Fathers. This in turn will subject political leaders to the “consent of the governed” that was also envisioned by the nation’s early theorists. While no such right is stated explicitly in the Constitution, a right to know is implied by Congressional investigative responsibilities that are delineated in the Constitution, particularly in Article II; the idea is also supported by numerous Supreme Court precedents on the rights of citizens to access information on government activities, either directly by request or indirectly via the press, which itself has important privileges and responsibilities granted by the First Amendment. A constitutional right to know has also been theorized by several influential First Amendment scholars. 
This article’s thesis builds upon the consent of the governed ideal advanced by philosopher John Locke, whose influence on the Founding Fathers is well documented. The consent of the governed requires access to information, thus leading to the informed consent that must be acknowledged by political leaders who operate under the oversight of the public. Furthermore, this article argues that informed consent can encourage informed dissent, or the ability of citizens to criticize unsatisfactory leaders and to call for change in the press and at the ballot box. In more precise terms, information leads to thought, which leads to the speech and expression that is protected by the First Amendment, which then leads to informed dissent, and finally to political action. This process, fueled by obtainable government-held information, enables the self-government that is at the heart of the American Constitution. 
 

/pdf/informed-dissent-toward-a-constitutional-right-to-know-1ig1k9ga.pdf

Martin E. Halstuk

Papers

The Freedom of Information Act 1966–2006: A Retrospective on the Rise of Privacy Protection Over the Public Interest in Knowing What the Government's Up To

Speed Bumps On The Information Superhighway: A Study Of Federal Agency Compliance With The Electronic Freedom Of Information Act Of 1996

Blurred vision: How supreme court FOIA opinions on invasion of privacy have missed the target of legislative intent

Policy of Secrecy-Pattern of Deception: What Federalist Leaders Thought About a Public Right to Know, 1794-98

Informed Dissent: Toward a Constitutional Right to Know