ACLU sues woman for asking FOIA request re numbers of trans prisoners

I think she's being named as an "interested party," as in she has an interest in the case. It's not a lawsuit as people generally understand the term to mean appearing in court, being subject to damages, etc. In my state, if a party filed this kind of injunction, it is required to provide notice to the person making the request, but this person is named named in the suit.

My point is that I think there's a potential bright side to this. It's getting publicity for the issue and will have a judge rather than a state worker in charge of FOIA requests considering the arguments.

That's shocking.

I'm by no means defending the ACLU for its position, but I don't believe this is a suit against the person making the request personally. It's a request for an injunction to stop the info being released. If Washington law is similar to my state's law, a party can challenge the release of info if they have an interest. It looks like the ACLU is representing some trans prisoners' interests in this case. The injunction is meant to stop the clock running on the deadline for release so that the ACLU and any other interested parties can get their arguments before a judge. In my state, the injunction would not name the person making the request, but Washington law may allow or even require this to alert the person that their request is being challenged. Also, requests themselves are subject to the FOIA- they aren't confidential.

My thinking is that getting this issue before a judge, especially with WOLF involved, might shed some needed sunshine on the issue. As long as the info isn't providing identifying info about any particular prisoner, I can't see why a judge wouldn't order it released.

Bloody hellfire, this is really chilling.

Is it common for the ACLU to do this, have they done this with any other FOI request?

I mean, even if you think it’s a terrible question to ask, the concept that public bodies are accountable to citizens is a pretty fundamental one to undermine.

This is something I've been wondering about in another context.

What the heck has happened to these civil liberties groups?

It was not all that long ago, within my adult lifetime, that they were so committed to freedom of speech and freedom of thought, that they would defend people whose ideas they considered abhorrent, if their liberties were infringed in those areas.

That sort of thing was fundamental to their mission and it gave them a heck of a lot of credibility when they weighed in.

I am really curious to know if there has been some sort of whole-scale change to their membership or leadership, or they've all had some sort of alien personality change, or if there is some inter-organisational battle going on. Because I cannot see how this has happened so fast.

I see a somewhat similar thing has happened with Amnesty International, but that was clearly a long time coming and I predicted they were going to run into problems when they lost so many members over abortion issues, in many ways undermining their mandate.

But I am still gobsmacked about groups like the ACLU.

Holy shit. How have we got here?

Wow. Civil liberties are only for men it seems. And women who identify as men like Chase Strangio.

That is unbelievably sinister.

I wonder who the woman is. She wants to remain anonymous.

I'm hoping against hope and crossing everything that she's a journalist

Sweet jesus. This is so so so fucked. How could anyone defend this? How could ACLU prosecute someone for exercising their democratic right to ask questions of government? The implication of this is chilling. This is active, organised, funded suppression of the truth.

One of the many reasons why prisons are segregated is because men tend to be violent and women tend to be victims of that violence. We desperately need data to understand whether as a population TW display male or female patterns of violence. Attempts to suppress this can only point to the reality that TW in prison show male patterns of violence against female inmates.

This is the OPPOSITE of what the ACLU mission is. They used to champion freedom of information and civil liberties! Absolutely appalling and frankly, this lawsuit seems contrary to our 1st Amendment.

The worry is now that every section of society, and specifically official bodies will have among its employees people who think their first loyalty is [elsewhere]

Standard FWR MN disclaimer, I'm not R0wantrees but does anyone else recall the Dawn Butler imbroglio?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3211692-Womans-Place-meeting-with-Dawn-Butler-Doxxed-by-Pink-News

I'm appalled that an organization like the ACLU, whose own resources helped me make this request, would try to stop a citizen from exercising their rights."

The ACLU of Washington has specifically advocated for the expansion of the Public Records Act in the past, stating, "Transparency is at the heart of democracy and today's decision affirms the right of the public to know about the work of the legislators that represent them."

They seem to have changed their tune.

This resulted in the case of a notorious baby killer undergoing the surgery and then being transferred into the same prison where the women whose children he killed is housed.

Monson writes that there were "two inmates moved from male to female prison. One is a serial killer who admitted to killing prostitutes and hating women, another is a sex offender charged with having sex with a 12 year old."

The woman is not wrong. In fact, Washington state radio host Dori Monson has detailed several accounts of women who are housed in women's prisons in the state and have been raped by gender non-conforming males who identify as transgender

I was about to ask what are they hiding.

But it's bloody obvious.

Ffs. It's worse than medieval.

I read about this elsewhere but hadn't thought of that aspect ie someone leaking personal information.

The worry is now that every section of society, and specifically official bodies will have among its employees people who think their first loyalty is to the rainbow flag.

Does anyone know if this is being investigated.

Or on what grounds the ACLU can sue an individual. These are the people who are supposed to protect the "little people" from big government and now they are acting like big government.

Considering it's a foia , how can the individual be included in the suit as surely it's perfectly legal for the foia ?

This is shocking.

This is rather chilling. How did ACLU know anything about it?

I'm interested to see if there is an enquiry into who leaked the FOIA submitter's identity, employers, and contact details (email address) to the ACLU alongside the content of her request.