I would argue it does matter because the public has to know all the law as ignorance of the law is no excuse. If Westlaw is limited or an unreasonable monetary burden on the populace (or possibly, depending on your argument, costs anything at all) then the argument kind of evaporates of how you can prosecute someone, because an essential part of law is that the party under criminal penalty must be put under clear notice of what is illegal.
IMO, this should also extend to opinions -- if there is precedent that guides what the law is, it needs to be publicly published free of charge so that the public is put under notice what the law is. (someone might mention something like PACER is free in small quantities, I would counter it would cost you a gazillion dollars to be fully informed of all the precedent that forms the full common law meaning of the laws.) This is especially important in mala prohibita crimes since there's no way to even guess through moral/ethical deduction.
> argument kind of evaporates of how you can prosecute someone, because an essential part of law is that the party under criminal penalty must be put under clear notice of what is illegal.
I reckon that’s why the sixth amendment exists but if you want to make a free PACER, go for it.
IMO, this should also extend to opinions -- if there is precedent that guides what the law is, it needs to be publicly published free of charge so that the public is put under notice what the law is. (someone might mention something like PACER is free in small quantities, I would counter it would cost you a gazillion dollars to be fully informed of all the precedent that forms the full common law meaning of the laws.) This is especially important in mala prohibita crimes since there's no way to even guess through moral/ethical deduction.