Think about politicians: "You have no right to use my personally identifiable data to accuse me of bribery!"
If you are acting officially on behalf of the state I have the moral right, whether the law says so or not, to scrutinize your decisions.
France clearly disagrees.
I think that's misguided on France's part, but it's not "censorship" per se.
This French law still leaves court papers conveniently accessible, it seems, to anyone with a browser. Anyone, working alone or in a team, can still analyze particular judges' tendencies, just not with automated help. So your conclusion "you are forbidden to summarize or think about the conclusions of said events and share your findings" doesn't quite hold. Since the volume of these papers is so huge, the law forces you to be motivated to focus on and analyze a particular judge or type of case or court system ... the cost isn't justifiable otherwise. It's kind of a de facto "warrant" system ... if you really want to search for weird judicial behavior you need to pay the price. In that light the French law isn't any more unreasonable than the U.S. public records review example.
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.