U.S. Supreme Court Victory:

[ensho]

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/03/01-22


U.S. Supreme Court Victory: Decision Rejects Theory That Corporations Have ‘Personal Privacy’ Rights Under FOIA


We applaud the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision this morning in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T holding that corporations do not have “personal privacy” rights under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). As the Supreme Court recognized, “personal privacy” is not a term that is used to refer to corporate interests.

The Supreme Court’s decision is an important victory for government transparency.

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.

We are pleased that FOIA will be able to continue to be used as intended, as an important tool for democracy and accountability, and that corporations cannot block disclosure by claiming release of records would harm their “personal privacy.”

The case stems from a FOIA request for records relating to an investigation by the FCC into alleged overbilling of the government by telecommunications provider AT&T.

-snip-

Today, the Supreme Court reversed. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that personal privacy “suggests a type of privacy evocative of human concerns – not the sort usually associated with an entity like, say, AT&T.”

The fact that “person” is defined for FOIA purposes to include corporations does not change the meaning of “personal.” As the court pointed out, the word “corny” has little to do with corn, and the word “crabby” does not refer either to a crustacean or an apple.

---------------------------

well, well, well

[valerief]

1. The Supreme Court acknowledged a difference between humans and corporations?

What's the catch? How does this benefit corporations (cuz it ALWAYS does ultimately)?

[Bandit]

2. Not really because they also do not believe people have a "right" to privacy.

Scalia in particular has been quite vocal on this. He says there is nowhere in the Constitution that actually says People have a "Right" to privacy. I would argue with him but I am not a Supreme Court Justice..

[speltwon]

3. Well, he is right on that narrow point

It doesn't. Contrast with my state constitution (and many others) which DO. Under state constitutional law, our law enforcement officers and govt. have MUCH more limited power to search, seize etc. than under the federal standards.

Most would argue that the constitution (federal) implicitly recognizes a "right to privacy", that this is what the 4th amendment MEANS, in the sense that it ultimately means the govt. should leave people the fuck alone w/o good cause.

The concept most legal scholars refer to is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and that is the standard by which searches can be said to violate or not violate privacy.

The 4th does not say "people have a right to privacy". Many state constitutions do. I strongly wish our federal constitution did. For example, DUI roadblocks are illegal in my state. Why? Privacy. Cops can't search motor vehicles upon arresting a person. Why? Privacy. Various types of overhead (helicopter etc.) surveillance of private property is prohibited here (like searching for drug stuff). Why? Privacy.

As a rule, states that have constitutions that explicitly mention privacy as a right tend to have much broader restrictions on police/govt power than those that don't

[FiveGoodMen]

4. Splitting hairs

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So it doesn't contain the word "privacy"? What do we mean by that word other than not being searched for that which is no one else's business?

[Bandit]

5. The US Constitution is soooo yesterday

Bush* and his Cabal pretty much did it in..Warrantless searches, elimination of Habeas Corpus, Enemy Combatants lose all Rights even without any trial or even official charges being levied. Case example Jose Padilla. An American citizen picked up on the streets of Chicago and held for years without due process. The Extreme Court said that was just fine and dandy...

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Let's not forget that our current president has done NOTHING to reverse this

[speltwon]

7. Well, constitutional law is ALL about splitting hairs

It's what they do. The more explicitly a constitution (or piece of legislation) is written, the less amount of court assholery can usually commence.

I have this (conspiracy) theory that legislation is often written purposefully vague, overbroad, etc. to spur the legal economy. It makes it easier for lots of lawyers to play law games over the definition of a word that COULD have been defined in the law. Programmers define terms. Legislators often, especially with kneejerk legislation, do not.

I spend a lot of time looking at comparative law - state vs. federal and a theme I frequently like to look at is how state versions of the 4th that recognize privacy often result in much more restricted law enforcement power. USUALLY, that's a good thing, but not always. In brief, I think govt. has too much search/seizure power (mostly, not always).

Huge legal decisions on law have sometimes come down to those very hairs that you talk about being split. Lilly Ledbetter is a perfect example.