Supreme Court rejects AT&T corporate privacy rights

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – AT&T Inc and other corporations do not have personal privacy rights to prevent disclosure of federal government records about them, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

The justices unanimously overturned a ruling by a U.S. appeals court for the telecommunications company that corporations can assert personal privacy in claiming the records should be exempt from disclosure.

The high court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreed with the Obama administration's argument that the personal privacy exemption under the Freedom of Information law applied only to individuals, not to corporations.

Public interest groups supported the government.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110301/tc_nm/us_att_privacy

[intheflow]

1. But - but - but -

corporations ARE people!

Oy, my head hurts. :banghead:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Muddy waters on-Muddy waters off

[Marnie]

9. Either they have recognized their place in judical

history, after Citizens United, will be that of evil black robed destroyers of the Constitution and democracy or

some business richer than AT&T told them to vote that way even though it makes not sense based on their own previous decision.

[quakerboy]

12. Or there is something else going on

I wonder if now that they have most of the rights they want, they are afraid someone will push things a little further and also heap them with responsibilities that go along with being a person.

Say the responsibility to pay personal income taxes, go to jail, etc.

[avaistheone1]

14. Perhaps so.

K&r

[Tatiana]

3. Interesting. So the wing-nuts on the court aren't completely in favor of corporate personhood?

I'm waiting for the catch.....

[ThomCat]

4. Well, that is one small bit of good news.

Corporations are people, but not quite people...

It would be nicer if they would backtrack on Citizens United. Because real citizens are united on the belief that corporations are not people. But it is very doubtful that this will ever happen under the current group of yahoos that sit on the supreme court.

[speltwon]

5. Probably in line with the ACLU

They supported the decision in Citizen's United, but I would be very surprised if they support the ability of corp's to be free from disclosures such as this

[meow2u3]

32. They're 3/5 of a person

:evilgrin: :rofl:

[happyslug]

6. The Opinion of the Court

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1279.pdf

[benld74]

7. Buts I thunk Corporations were people?!?!?!?

[Thor_MN]

11. Only when talking rights. If your talking responsibilty or taxes - that's different

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Where did you get that idea?

[fasttense]

8. AT&T probably didn't give the Supreme Court justices big enough bribes,

Perhaps if they had given their spouses better paying jobs or bought a justice or two some air time or bought them trips. AT&T should have done more to get money into the hands of the dancing supremes. Then their corporations-are-people-too whine would have been considered seriously by the court.

[Mojorabbit]

10. Yay! nt

[The Second Stone]

13. The right wing nuts on the court are attacking everybody's

right to privacy here by not finding one for corporations. This is not inconsistent with Citizens United, which held that corporations are persons that have first amendment rights. As far as the righties are concerned, nobody has a right of privacy in the constitution. Privacy is, according to them, an entirely legislative creature that can exist at the whim of legislators and be extinguished at the whim of legislators.

[Enthusiast]

16. Even a broken clock? nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

17. Supreme Court: AT&T can't keep bad behavior a secret

Source: Ars Technica

The Supreme Court decided (PDF) today that AT&T can't keep embarrassing corporate information that it submits to the government out of public view; “personal privacy” rights do not apply to corporations. “We trust that AT&T will not take it personally” concluded the ruling. (...)

(...) A trade association, CompTel, which included some AT&T rivals decided that it might be nice to take a look at all of this embarrassing AT&T material. CompTel made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FCC, asking for copies of everything that AT&T submitted. AT&T objected, and the matter has wound its way through various hearings and court decisions for years, until today's ruling from the Supreme Court. (...)

AT&T insisted that this personal privacy exemption applied even to corporations—after all, corporations are considered legal “persons” in the US. AT&T won this argument at a federal appeals court, convincing judges there that its submissions to the government should remain private.

But the Supreme Court was having none of it, with every justice except Elena Kagan (she recused herself) agreeing that FOIA was not written simply to prevent corporate embarrassment. After lengthy discussions of grammar, including commentary about the relationship between nouns and adjectives, the court concluded that “personal” in this case referred to individuals and to private life, not to corporate dealings and business decisions.

Read more: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/supreme-court-att-cant-keep-bad-behavior-a-secret.ars

---

“We trust that AT&T will not take it personally” :rofl:

PDF of the decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1279.pdf

[Vincardog]

18. Now if they will only decide that NATURAL persons are the only ones having HUMAN rights we are cool

[Overseas]

29. Yes!

www.reclaimdemocracy.org

[Mnemosyne]

19. The fact that the Supremes felt the need to conclude their 'ruling' with "We trust that AT&T will

not take it personally", says it all. Apologizing to their corporate masters/owners/buddies. :puke:

[guruoo]

20. My iphone didn't take it personally...

much.

[nalnn]

21. This seems very duplicitous to be sure.

Corporate privacy. Pshaw!

George Washington had it right. This democracy thing only works if you have moral and upright citizens. Corps. don't count as citizens IMO.

[kpete]

22. Supreme Court: Corporations don’t have ‘personal privacy’ rights

Source: Raw Story

http://www.eff.org/files/FCCvAT&T.pdf

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Tuesday that AT&T and other corporations do not have personal privacy rights under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Freedom of Information Act requires federal agencies to make documents publicly available upon request, but contains an exemption for documents that "constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

Claiming they were a "corporation citizen," AT&T tried to use the personal privacy exemption to prevent the disclosure of federal government documents about the company.

The unanimous decision in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc. reversed a ruling by a US appeals court in favor the telecommunications company.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/02/supreme-court-corporations-dont-have-personal-privacy-rights/

[fascisthunter]

23. next..... corporate personhood

[no_hypocrisy]

24. and therefore . . . . corporations can't legally be "persons".

[meow2u3]

31. If corporations are persons, then they're technically slaves, if you look deeper

If corporations are regarded as persons, they are owned by other persons: shareholders, when it comes to public corporations and the executive directors with regards to private corps, who are human beings/natural persons; therefore, corporations are technically slaves, persons owned by other persons, a blatant violation of the 13th Amendment.

Corporate personhood should be abolished under the auspices of the 13th Amendment because of the Constitutional ban on slavery and/or involuntary servitude, with the exception of a person being convicted of a crime. Even the "strict constructionists" in charge of the Supreme Court would go along with this, although, in my opinion, it's a long shot.

Another way of putting it: the only way corporations can be constitutionally regarded as persons is if they're literally criminals convicted of some sort of financial crime. To avoid that trap, corporations should be considered artifically created legal entities, without rights per se. The shareholders who own the corporations should be the ones with the rights and responsibilities of the corporation they own, in proportion to the amount of stock they own in the company or companies.

Note: this is the short version.

[sharesunited]

25. Noteworthy that a U.S. Appeals Court had to be reversed by SCOTUS on this.

That's a circuit which is obviously in need of some rehab.

[xchrom]

26. while this is good -- it certainly prompts this reaction from me

:eyes:

[yellowcanine]

27. Claiming they were a "corporation citizen," Oh my.....

"The unanimous decision in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc. reversed a ruling by a US appeals court in favor the telecommunications company."


AT&T may have done us a big favor here. They have carried the arguments in the "Citizens United" decision to the point of absurdity that even the conservatives on the SCOTUS could not ignore.

[Doctor_J]

28. Maybe they can hear the calls for Slappy's disbarment

And the guillotines being oiled up.

[WatsonT]

30. That seems accurate to me.

Good.

[No Elephants]

33. Duh?

If we weren't such a plutonomy, this case would never have gotten as far as the Supremes. It should have been a no brainer.