You might want to edit all your very sure posts about how this is an american thing, seeing as you've been corrected now. Being that it's what you base most of your argument on you might as well just delete them entirely.
Can't. And yes, I have been aware that other countries have FOIA-like legislation, just as I am aware the Soviet Union and China had/have constitutional rights to freedom of speech.
I am still of the opinion that this means little if nothing without a discussion of implementation details. I.e., whether or not they match American jurisprudence on application to intelligence services such as the case at hand. (E.g., It is on the implementation details when you discover that China and the USSR do NOT have freedom of speech, their constitutions be damned. The devil's in the details.) Wikipedia does not go this in-depth, the UK has stare decisis but lacks codified laws, Germany's FOIA laws are very recent, Sweden is small with an even smaller pool of lawyers and law professors who write about such issues, and in general these countries don't seem to have well-developed "constant jurisprudence" to compliment their very ambiguous statutory law, so the state of things can be extremely difficult to ascertain. (I admit I did not know Sweden's freedom of the press "constitutional law" was applicable, nor about Germany's recent legislation which is not very tested AKAIK. I assume Russia has one as well, leftover from Soviet times. The UK, Russia, Germany and Sweden are the only countries who's legal systems I have knowledge of.)
Just as in America, there is statutory law, then there is reality. They can, and do, deviate significantly.
Comments
You might want to edit all your very sure posts about how this is an american thing, seeing as you've been corrected now. Being that it's what you base most of your argument on you might as well just delete them entirely.
Can't. And yes, I have been aware that other countries have FOIA-like legislation, just as I am aware the Soviet Union and China had/have constitutional rights to freedom of speech.
I am still of the opinion that this means little if nothing without a discussion of implementation details. I.e., whether or not they match American jurisprudence on application to intelligence services such as the case at hand. (E.g., It is on the implementation details when you discover that China and the USSR do NOT have freedom of speech, their constitutions be damned. The devil's in the details.) Wikipedia does not go this in-depth, the UK has stare decisis but lacks codified laws, Germany's FOIA laws are very recent, Sweden is small with an even smaller pool of lawyers and law professors who write about such issues, and in general these countries don't seem to have well-developed "constant jurisprudence" to compliment their very ambiguous statutory law, so the state of things can be extremely difficult to ascertain. (I admit I did not know Sweden's freedom of the press "constitutional law" was applicable, nor about Germany's recent legislation which is not very tested AKAIK. I assume Russia has one as well, leftover from Soviet times. The UK, Russia, Germany and Sweden are the only countries who's legal systems I have knowledge of.)
Just as in America, there is statutory law, then there is reality. They can, and do, deviate significantly.