>After all, how can a society dictate how its citizens are allowed to use data and interpret it – if that data is already placed in public view, by a public body, such as a court?

I’m totally flabbergasted at how public domain is now not only censored, but sharing of it is punishable by prison time...

>This seems to be like giving someone access to a public library, but banning them from reading certain books that are sitting right there on the shelf for all to see. This is a sort of coercive censorship, but of the most bizarre kind – as it’s the censorship of justice’s own output.

The phrasing of the law is more close to being allowed to read important books about historical events, but you are forbidden to summarize or think about the conclusions of said events and share your findings. I can’t seem to think of another way to rationalize those who approved this into law other than the judges simply didn’t like the public knowing ‘how they think’. What a truly bizarre verdict.