<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><b style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Putting the Public’s Interest Back Into the “Public Interest”<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><o:p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">[David Levine] What’s your definition of the “public interest” when it comes to law and lawmaking? Is it a unitary concept, where we consider the good of society as a whole? If so, you might think that the public’s interest is in a “public interest” which encompasses “cross-cutting issues” that transcend narrow considerations and allows debate about and among competing interests. On the other hand, do you view the “public interest” more narrowly? If so, you might view the public’s interest as served by placing “public interest” in a box separate from other interests, like environmental, labor or intellectual property policy. From that perspective, the “public interest” is just another consideration in the panoply of considerations that make up society. <a href="http://infojustice.org/archives/32460">Click here for more.</a></span></p><br><br></body></html>