Supreme Court says corporations do not have personal privacy rights

[somone]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/01/att-privacy-idUSN0111755720110301

US top court rejects AT&T corporate privacy rights
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON, March 1 (Reuters) - AT&T Inc and other corporations do not have personal privacy rights to prevent disclosure of federal government records about them, the U.S. 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.

A public interest group applauded the ruling. "If records could be withheld on the theory that they would 'embarrass' a corporation, as AT&T had argued, the public would be deprived of important information about corporate wrongdoing and the government's response to it," said Adina Rosenbaum, an attorney for the group Public Citizen.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. And water,remembers it's suppose to flow downhill.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Unanimous - that makes a change

Normally at least Scalia and Thomas find a way to side with corporations.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. It's worth reminding everyone that half the supreme court thinks that NO ONE has a right to privacy.

[Uncle Joe]

9. And you're the winner!!!!!

:toast: :party: :bounce:


Bob what did lumberjack_jeff win?




Joe, jeff won a new car; brand new in 72 it's a Chevy Vega!!:toast: :party:

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Woo hoo! I loves me some Chevy Vegas!

All the parts that were crap in 1972 (like the engine) have now been replaced with things that work.

[fishwax]

12. heh -- good point n/t

[blondeatlast]

4. The faintest glimmer of hope is in that decision.

I'm truly shocked that it is unanimous, wow.

[immoderate]

5. This may be important.

A lot of our problems stem from the fact that corporations are considered persons under the law. We need the SC to break that notion.

--imm

[du_da]

11. Would that be

the job of the legislature?

[immoderate]

13. AFAIK, the concept of "corporate personhood" stems from a SC decision.

It's complex and I'm not a lawyer. But I think this is a good step.

--imm

[bigmonkey]

17. Actually, it stems from a summary that a railroad-allied clerk made.

A summary that originally had no legal force, but has been used as a "precedent" for almost 100 years now. Look up the story of Thom Hartmann examining the actual record of the case - it's infuriating. The court never ruled that corporations are persons, and the chief justice of the time actually put a note in the record, in his own handwriting, to indicate that they hadn't.

[immoderate]

19. Thanks. I was vaguely aware of that situation.

Probably heard Hartmann as well as others, but what can you do except be infuriated? :shrug:

--imm

[Kurovski]

6. Okey dokey, then.

[Historic NY]

7. Does this mean political gift giving is open too? ala Koch's

[FredStembottom]

8. I'm surprised and puzzled by this....

???????
The Roberts Court did this?

[fascisthunter]

10. me thinks corporate personhood will eventually go way the dinosaurs

not just because of this, but because the concept is theoretical bullshit used by those with too much money to unequally influence government officials. People have caught on and more will eventually.

[defendandprotect]

14. Then they have no other "person-al" rights, either -- naturally--!!!

[Bandit]

15. Not surprising, this Extreme Court doesn't even believe people have privacy rights.

:shrug:

[struggle4progress]

18. Sadly, many of SCOTUS probably don't think individuals have personal privacy rights, either