<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Puts Supreme Court Opinions Online</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.openculture.com/2009/11/google_puts_supreme_court_opinions_online.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.openculture.com/2009/11/google_puts_supreme_court_opinions_online.html</link>
	<description>The best free cultural &#38; educational media on the web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:01:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reputation Lost</title>
		<link>http://www.openculture.com/2009/11/google_puts_supreme_court_opinions_online.html#comment-21812</link>
		<dc:creator>Reputation Lost</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openculture.com/?p=5696#comment-21812</guid>
		<description>While I applaud open government initiatives, there is a downside to providing court opinions through Google Search; the unexpected loss of personal privacy and potential serious damage to the reputation and employment prospects of an individual seeking redress in the courts.

It appears that you do not need to us Google Scholar to find court opinions through Google. Google your name the same way as a potential employer typically does these days. If you&#039;ve been named in a court opinion, chances it will be at or near the top of the results. 

File an appeal to denial of unemployment or workers compensation benefits by an administrative body and you might as well forget about ever getting job with an organization that finds the court opinion regarding it. Any nasty statements from your past or present employer are there. Even if you win the appeal, the content an opinion may present you in a bad light. Worse yet, if someone else sharing your name is identified in a court opinion you can suffer harm from opinions on cases that have nothing at all to do with you personally. The majority of employers will pass on an otherwise exciting job candidate simply because they  filed a complaint in the past, even if the content of the opinion shows you in a positive or neutral light.

Individual names must be redacted or anonymized in court opinions available outside of the official court records to protect the innocent for irreparable harm to their reputations and livelihoods. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I applaud open government initiatives, there is a downside to providing court opinions through Google Search; the unexpected loss of personal privacy and potential serious damage to the reputation and employment prospects of an individual seeking redress in the courts.</p>
<p>It appears that you do not need to us Google Scholar to find court opinions through Google. Google your name the same way as a potential employer typically does these days. If you&#8217;ve been named in a court opinion, chances it will be at or near the top of the results. </p>
<p>File an appeal to denial of unemployment or workers compensation benefits by an administrative body and you might as well forget about ever getting job with an organization that finds the court opinion regarding it. Any nasty statements from your past or present employer are there. Even if you win the appeal, the content an opinion may present you in a bad light. Worse yet, if someone else sharing your name is identified in a court opinion you can suffer harm from opinions on cases that have nothing at all to do with you personally. The majority of employers will pass on an otherwise exciting job candidate simply because they  filed a complaint in the past, even if the content of the opinion shows you in a positive or neutral light.</p>
<p>Individual names must be redacted or anonymized in court opinions available outside of the official court records to protect the innocent for irreparable harm to their reputations and livelihoods. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J. Quinn Public</title>
		<link>http://www.openculture.com/2009/11/google_puts_supreme_court_opinions_online.html#comment-8133</link>
		<dc:creator>J. Quinn Public</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:38:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openculture.com/?p=5696#comment-8133</guid>
		<description>Wimberely, you&#039;re correct: after all, Oyez has SCOTUS opinions plus seachable legal opinions and journals, and federal court opinions, and state court opinions.

Oh wait, does it?

Averting your eyeballs from ads is a small price to pay for avoiding the wexis/nestlaw extortion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wimberely, you&#8217;re correct: after all, Oyez has SCOTUS opinions plus seachable legal opinions and journals, and federal court opinions, and state court opinions.</p>
<p>Oh wait, does it?</p>
<p>Averting your eyeballs from ads is a small price to pay for avoiding the wexis/nestlaw extortion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laura Wimberley</title>
		<link>http://www.openculture.com/2009/11/google_puts_supreme_court_opinions_online.html#comment-8130</link>
		<dc:creator>Laura Wimberley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openculture.com/?p=5696#comment-8130</guid>
		<description>This has already been done for the US Supreme Court, and very well, at oyez.org.  Oyez is easy to use, has lots of additional content, including summaries and audio of oral arguments, and is ad-free and Creative Commons licensed for its original content.  Plus, you can search by court term, Justice, and the name of the legal counsel.

So I&#039;m not sure what&#039;s so great about Google searching public domain content and adding advertisements to it. Maybe this is useful because most people go to Google first, but it&#039;s not new.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This has already been done for the US Supreme Court, and very well, at oyez.org.  Oyez is easy to use, has lots of additional content, including summaries and audio of oral arguments, and is ad-free and Creative Commons licensed for its original content.  Plus, you can search by court term, Justice, and the name of the legal counsel.</p>
<p>So I&#8217;m not sure what&#8217;s so great about Google searching public domain content and adding advertisements to it. Maybe this is useful because most people go to Google first, but it&#8217;s not new.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

