Yesterday I opened up the “government communications versus PLEI” can of worms. In yesterday’s stab at the issue—stab one of two—I tried to sort out the differences between PLEI and “communications” from government. A handy way of thinking of it, I propose, is this:
“Government communications” legal information is like product information from the manufacturer. Independent PLEI is like product information from a third party product reviewer. Both can be helpful, both can be wrong, both can be biased.
Today, I want to tackle the rest of this issue: first, whether government can make real PLEI, distinct from “communications”; and then, how we might reduce the confusion and debate around this topic.
GOVERNMENT PLEI?
Can we make a meaningful distinction between different types of legal information that the government produces? That is, is there real government PLEI that’s not government “communications”?
Marie Moliner, in her 1997 PLEI Review [311 KB PDF] answered “yes, but…” to these questions. She pointed out that Justice Canada has a budget for producing PLEI materials internally and has used it for programming similar to the programming that independent PLEI organizations do. However, Moliner discovered a consensus that Justice Canada’s PLEI efforts were far from optimal. She collected a long list of complaints about the government PLEI, including:
- the materials were written at too high a literacy level
- materials were not sensitive to regional differences
- text and images were unclear and even confusing
- “communications” messages would creep in to the PLEI
Plus, Moliner noted the further problem that community organizations and the public are often more skeptical of government PLEI than of non-government PLEI.
Altogether, I think this shows that while the differences between communications, government PLEI, and independent PLEI may fall across a continuum, there are significant disadvantages to government-produced legal information and PLEI programming. Moliner, in fact, recommended in her report that Justice Canada cease all internal PLEI production and adopt a policy of contracting all PLEI work to independent organizations.
SOLUTIONS
To get some insight into solving this issue, we ought to look to the UK, where a national task force is currently trying to come up with a sturdy national strategy for PLE.
The UK task force has directly considered the question of how involved the government should be in PLE. The consensus they’ve come to is that PLE must be independent: “PLE itself must be available from independent sources and must be seen to be independently produced” [the report: 273 KB PDF]. Comments from around the UK noted that:
“non-governmental organisations may offer a wider degree of independence, impartiality and innovation”
and that
“if there is to be a responsible body [it should be] independent of government: there is always a risk that information will be edited in its presentation to suit the interests of the body that commissions that information.”
These observations from the UK, especially when combined with the Moliner review’s recommendations, strongly suggest that we should favor independent PLEI over government PLEI. But even if we establish a formal preference for independent PLEI, the government will never be able to avoid (or resist) disseminating legal information to the public. How do we delineate roles?
We might be able to delineate roles the same way we delineate roles between PLEI organizations and direct legal services agencies: with a disclaimer. Already, PLEI organizations use disclaimers to point out that their role is to provide information and education, not advice. Government could do the same, using disclaimers to urge the public to go to PLE organizations for practical, localized legal learning. It might look something like this:
The information here is government issued legal information. It represents the government’s interpretation of the law and is not intended as practical assistance. For practical information and education about legal issues, appropriate for your area, contact a public legal education organization. If you need personalized legal advice, call a lawyer or legal aid agency.
Is this a good start? Or would this never work?