The high caliber of these stories demonstrates the value, to journalists, of public records laws as tools for reporting.

One has to be concerned with not impeding on two constitutional rights: the right to petition the government, and the other, of course, is free speech. If you make it too difficult, too onerous, for people to express their views, you've gone too far.

It would be very painful, no question about it. Perhaps they could pay current employees some compensation to make it less painful - anything to avoid open-ended liability forever and ever.

What upsets me is when people get a super pension, tax-free, and then still, at a very young age, go off and get another nice job, with a big salary.

It does, on the face of it, anyway, sound like it's confined narrowly to address a particular problem.

There is no ambiguity here. It's beyond question the courts may not issue an injunction prohibiting further reporting in this case.

If it is inconceivable that a suit could be brought, they shouldn't be talking about it in closed session. They shouldn't be talking about it at all.

Words spoken in that context are privileged and could only be the basis for a libel suit in the most extreme circumstances.