This is not a Jew- Gentile issue here but here
is something to think about in discriminating against the average
American and poor. This was very insightful and just a small answer to
some of the questions why it is becoming more and more difficult to
survive in this world.
The 'Secret' American Laws You Have to Pay to See
By Bruce Watson
Posted 3:00PM 03/23/12 Posted under: Economy, Special Report,
secret laws
\In
America, dealing with the legal system isn't cheap If you find yourself
in court, chances are that you'll spend a fortune hiring the best
lawyer you can afford. But while good legal counsel costs a bundle,
access to the law itself is supposed to be free. In other words,
although you may need a professional to help you understand the legal
code, you are supposed to be able to find out what the laws are without
paying for the privilege.
But that's not the case with all laws. For some, you have to pay a stiff price just to take a peek.
Codes
and standards -- the rules governing everything from fire safety in
your office to your home electrical system -- occupy a twilight area
between private information and public law. On the one hand, some of
these rules are part of the legal system, and a failure to abide by them
can result in stiff penalties. On the other, many of them were
developed and updated by private organizations like the U.S. Green
Building Council, the National Fire Protection Association or the
Society of Automotive Engineers. Having produced these codes and
standards, these nonprofit organizations are legally allowed to charge
for access to them.
A Battle For Democratic Ideals
According
to Jerry Goldman, research professor of law and director of the Oyez
Project at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, this poses a serious
challenge to some of America's most deeply-held ideals. "In a democracy,
our laws are our operating system," he argues. "The operating system
has to be free if we want a vibrant democracy."
By denying access
to the law, Goldman claims, standards-setting organizations have
created a "barrier to entry" for people who want to know the rules
governing many aspects of their lives: "A layperson who wants to
understand building code -- who wants to lift up the hood and see what's
going on, as it were -- will be stuck with the full price of the code,
and will be deterred from pursuing the issue further."
One group
has faced the code issue head-on. Public.Resource.Org, a nonprofit
organization dedicated to free access to the law, has spent the last
five years posting state safety codes online. Recently, the group upped
the stakes with their decision to copy and distribute 73 safety
standards manuals that are integrated into federal law. In a largely
symbolic move, they sent out 25 copies of the code books to a variety of
groups, including the National Archives, the White House, and Harvard
Law School.
But while Public.Resource.Org's actions were
symbolic, the costs -- and potential consequences -- are far more
tangible. All told, those 73 manuals cost the group $7,416.26, and the
fines for reproducing them could total more than $273 million.
Charging for the Law
Why
do standards-setting organizations charge so much for code books -- and
why do they threaten such high fines for copying? To Goldman, the
answer is simple: "As far as I can tell, there's no reason, apart from
profiteering on the part of the organizations that render this service."
But
not everybody sees the problem in such black-and-white terms. Thomas
Bruce, director of Cornell's Legal Information Institute, notes that
creating codes and standards isn't cheap: "The standards-setting
organizations develop these codes at some expense to themselves," he
explains. "They have to do extensive testing, writing and editing."
On
the other hand, Bruce also admits that there is a definite problem with
denying public access to the law. As he puts it, "A very real problem
is that people can find themselves being held legally accountable for
access to information for which they have to pay a fee."
To make
things worse, the cost to access many codes has gone up, raising
questions about where the money is going. Ideally, standards-setting
groups like the NFPA or the SAE would use the money generated by their
publishing wings to fund their testing and development programs, with
little cash left over. In reality, though, Bruce notes, "It's reasonable
to ask how many of these standards-setting organizations are becoming
profit centers."
Commerce vs. Democracy
Ultimately, the
question of access to codes translates into a battle between the
democratic ideal of free access to the law and the very real -- and very
high -- cost of developing these codes. If standards-setting groups
were forced to publish their work for free, then there would be little
economic reason for them to continue the high-cost process of developing
codes. Or, as Thomas Bruce puts it, "If we take an ideological position
and assume that we want total access to these standards, we have to ask
how we shift the cost of producing them."
The obvious answer is
that, if private organizations were no longer able to produce standards,
the federal government would fill the gap, at some expense to
taxpayers. But Jim Shannon, president and CEO of the NFPA, argues that
the financial costs would be the least of the problems with
federally-produced standards. A much bigger concern, he claims, would be
the loss of an efficient, independent, and highly responsive
standards-setting body.
The National Fire Protection Agency,
Shannon's group, brings together more than 5,000 employees and
volunteers to produce and test its standards. Representatives of all
interested parties -- including manufacturers, consumers, the
government, and other groups -- take part in the code-creation process.
But while the NFPA draws from a wide variety of shareholders, it isn't
dependent upon any of them for its funding, which means that it can
maintain complete independence.
That's radically different from
government organizations, like the FDA and the SEC, whose regulations
generally bear the fingerprints of an army of well-paid lobbyists. And,
unlike the food, drug and financial industries, which have been riddled
with scandals and corruption, the NFPA's standards have proven quite
successful, at least for the 150 countries -- including the United
States -- that have adopted them. "It's a classic example of a
public/private partnership that works," Shannon argues.
Much Ado About Nothing?
But
what about access to the law? According to Shannon, the issue has been
greatly overblown. Far from the high-priced barrier to legal access that
Public.Resource.Org claims, he notes that the NFPA actually goes to
great lengths to ensure that the public is able to access all of its
codes at low cost: "We have put our codes and standards on the Internet
in a read-only format. People can access them for free, but can't
download or print them out."
Shannon argues that the NFPA's system works well for all of its shareholders.
"We
don't get complaints from states, experts, agencies, or really even the
public," he says. "We do hear complaints from third-party groups that
want free information in the abstract." But while their argument is
abstract, Public.Resource.Org's push for free publication of standards,
Shannon notes, would have very real impacts: "It would destroy a system
that has worked for 100 years. The consequences would be huge."
A Bad Example
In
some ways, the NFPA represents an ideal example of a standards-setting
body. The Fire Code, their main publication, is an exhaustive, 668-page
compendium of fire protection requirements, updated every three years.
It costs $82, but -- as Shannon notes -- is available online for free.
What's more, it is self-funding: Proceeds from its sale pay for its
development, as well as public education, advocacy work and lobbying for
stricter safety standards.
But the practices of some
standards-setting bodies are a bit more questionable. For example, the
U.S. Green Building Council, a nonprofit group that creates the
standards for environmentally-sustainable buildings, charges quite a bit
more for its materials. For example, the group's main publication --
the 645-page LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and
Construction -- costs $195, more than twice the price of the Fire Code,
and the data isn't available for free online.
This wouldn't be a
major problem, if not for the fact that all new work on every federal
building must meet the LEED gold standard. In other words, if an
engineer, architect, contractor -- or even Public.Resource.Org's ideal
civilian who wants to take a peek under the hood of America's laws --
would like to know about the legal requirements for a government
building, he or she would have to pay a premium for the information.
Tristan Roberts, editorial director of BuildingGreen, points out the
basic rules are available online for free, but they lack a lot of key
information. "You'd be crazy to try to certify or construct a LEED
building without the reference guide," he says
Surprisingly,
Public.Resource.Org has not chosen to target the USGBC. They have,
however, taken aim at Underwriters Laboratories, an organization whose
standards aren't actually codified into the law.
Ultimately,
Public.Resource.Org's quest for the disclosure of all our laws is
certainly worthwhile, but their targets seem to be cherry-picked for
maximum political impact, regardless of whether or not the groups
involved are actually obscuring the law. And, with organizations like
NFPA working to balance ease of access with protection for their
intellectual property, it's worth asking if Public.Resource.Org's quest
is a constitutional crusade or a bit of political positioning.
Public.Resource.Org refused our request for comment.
Bruce Watson is a senior features writer for DailyFinance. You can reach him by e-mail at
bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.
Reply
Quote
Notify
Remove
to the last of the above comments you made in your #120 post MBG, I have a couple of questions first.
No comments:
Post a Comment