Is it not time for a simple act of congress "The egregious breach of the constitution act". Imposing the personal liability and civil penalties on any official who blatantly abuses is or her powers in contravention of the constitution.
The only way to make people this bad think is to make their misdeeds hurt their own circumstances. It wouldn't need to be imposed very often by the courts to have a rapidly chilling effect on the nutters.
Then after this proves effective it could be extended to FOIA blockers
It isn't that I lobby I just acquired the hobby Of working hard to influence them all It's not because they paid me And no, nobody made me, It's just that I'm at Comcast's beck and call A lobbyist I'm not That's simply Tommy rot
Your writing isn't funny I hand out LOADS of money To anyone who'll scream that they agree It's not influence I'm buying (Although I'm really trying!) It's the only way that they'll be friends with me A lobbyist NO WAY I simply preach for pay!
Suppose I take out a trademark for Rear Lee Gude watches, my being Rear Lee Gude, but Amazon has never heard of me. Now suppose a customer of Amazon's, or possibly more than one such customer, is dyslexic and tries to search for a really good watch. Can I sue Amazon for trying to sell these unfortunate individuals really good watches made by other people?
It is high time that judges were held to a reasonable standard.
Now you've posted that Douglas Adams will have been dissuaded from ever writing anything again!
On a separate note were I an Australian voter I would message my member of parliament to say that I would guarantee to vote for them at the next election if they read and signed the non-disclosure then stood up in Parliament and read out the whole document. I believe that Australian Parliamentary proceedings are, like UK ones, privileged in such regards. You cannot sue an MP for what he says there, even if he signed a promise not to.
Actually Edison's electric light patents were far from clear, and also probably not inventive as it described nothing more than obvious improvements on already existing ideas, both patented and not. His team didn't discover the filament that worked until well after the patent was filed and indeed in other countries the primacy of his inventions for the purposes patents was not accepted. The patent system has been broken for MANY years, James Watt and Matthew Boulton used very dubious patents to stifle any and all improvements in steam engines for decades, Alexander Graham Bell's telephone patent has long been mired in controversy, Marconi with Radio and countless other examples keep cropping up. These current patents are egregiously bad because they clearly derive from complete non-inventions but that's nothing new!
All speech is free, if you agree with everything I think And never have opinions of your own, Then any day you'll have your say and I shan't even blink You'll find that perfect tolerance is shown, But if instead you use your head and think things for yourself, I shall ensure a large policeman calls. True liberty applies to me, all else stays on the shelf, No other rights pertain within these walls. One Man One Vote, I am that man, I do these things because I can!
If the student's name is to be made public for playing a stupid prank then the school principal, the school head of IT and the teacher in question must all be named too so we can see what sort of incompetent idiots are in charge of educating young Americans. We could then start a couple of watch lists "People who should never be allowed to teach or work in contact with young people" and "People who must never be allowed to work in any way connected with law enforcement" This could also be a shot in the arm for the American paper ink and pen manufacturing industries ...
What is REALLY worrying is that had this guy shot an unarmed teenager in a hooded jacket who was walking down a street after dark rather than having a photograph taken with a celebrity he'd be in the clear!
As a British subject I strongly object to the University of Kentucky infringing on our will known and historically important UK mark. We are quite capable of our own stupidity without someone else trying to usurp our interests. Where do we go to sue ...
Science almost never says "this is true" that isn't how it works. Science works the other way about, you make an hypothesis based on evidence and then you attempt to disprove it. Most people however are not scientists they want to know if x is x and y is y so journalists, being people selling their views to people like to say "Scientists tell us ..."
The reason it is vital that papers are available for everyone to read is that the paper should contain the evidence and the reasoning so you can judge for yourself.
"That does not seem like a particularly intelligent way to govern or to legislate."
I've never yet in all my reading of history come across an example of any state finding an intelligent way to legislate. People in power, on the whole, tend to act in their own perceived interest, and they cannot believe anyone else does otherwise.