On the theme of open information [ http://www.ifla.org/III/clm/p1/ilp.htm ], Andrew Raff [ http://www.andrewraff.com/words/thoughts/ ] and Alice of A Mad Tea Party [ http://www.whostolethetarts.com/ ] are deliberating: [ http://www.andrewraff.com/words/thoughts/000483.php ] what would happen if courts were to publish their opinions in open format?

Update, sent from Aaron Silverstein [ http://1715.blogspot.com/ ] (& Matt Haughey [ http://a.wholelottanothing.org/ ]): Transcribing Justice: A Reno v. ACLU War Story [ http://snurl.com/7iu ] (1997). It reads:

In a recent decision striking down censorship provisions of the Communications Decency Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court declared in Reno v. ACLU that the Internet represented "a new marketplace of ideas."

But don't expect that virtual marketplace to include in-demand fresh transcripts of Supreme Court oral arguments, writes Carl Kaplan in CyberLaw Journal, a new column from The New York Times' CyberTimes website.

In a paradoxical footnote to the CDA case, Alderson Reporting Co., Inc., the Washington, D.C.-based company that has an exclusive contract to tape-record Supreme Court oral arguments and sell official transcripts, has recently decided to restrict buyers of the transcripts from posting them on the Web.