Corporations don't have 'personal privacy' rights, Supreme Court rules

[^_^ 5,021]

Corporations do not have a right to "personal privacy," the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, at least when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act and the release of documents held by the government.

...

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took a scalpel to a corporate-rights claim from AT&T Inc. that its "personal privacy" deserves to be protected. The ordinary meaning of "personal" does not refer to an impersonal company, he said.

"We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities," he wrote. "In fact, we often use the word 'personal' to mean precisely the opposite of business-related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company's view."

The decision means the Federal Communications Commission may release documents that were compiled during an investigation in 2004 over whether AT&T had overcharged schools and libraries for use of the Internet.

...

When some of its competitors sought release of the documents through the Freedom of Information Act, AT&T objected. It cited an exception in the law that shields law enforcement records which might result in an "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

AT&T won a ruling based on that provision from the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Its judges noted one part of the law defines "person" to include not just an individual but also a "partnership, association or corporation."

...

"We trust that AT&T will not take it personally," Roberts said in a parting comment.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-court-corporations-20110302,0,2806698.story

[Zero Sum 305]

So can we request FOIA from companies and see where their political contributions go?

[^_^ 5,021]

So can we request FOIA from companies and see where their political contributions go?

I would imagine but then I'm no lawyer.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took a scalpel to a corporate-rights claim from AT&T Inc. that its "personal privacy" deserves to be protected. The ordinary meaning of "personal" does not refer to an impersonal company, he said.

"We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities," he wrote. "In fact, we often use the word 'personal' to mean precisely the opposite of business-related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company's view."

I agree with what he said above, but it makes me scratch my head as to why then he extended the 1st Amendment Rights to corporations in the Citizens United ruling???

[Zero Sum 305]

I would imagine but then I'm no lawyer.

But you could be. If you said you were, I'd believe you.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So can we request FOIA from companies and see where their political contributions go?

Only if they filed that information with the FEC, which is public information anyways. FOIA only apply to the records held by the Federal Government.

[Zero Sum 305]

Only if they filed that information with the FEC, which is public information anyways. FOIA only apply to the records held by the Federal Government.

So it looks like subpoena then.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I agree with what he said above, but it makes me scratch my head as to why then he extended the 1st Amendment Rights to corporations in the Citizens United ruling???

It has to do with freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment.

[^_^ 5,021]

I agree with what he said above, but it makes me scratch my head as to why then he extended the 1st Amendment Rights to corporations in the Citizens United ruling???

Grammar:

AT&T argues that the word “personal” in Exemption 7© incorporates the statutory definition of “person,” which includes corporations

, §551(2).

But adjectives do not always reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns. “Person” is a defined term in the statute; “personal” is not. When a statute does not define a term, the Court typically “give

the phrase its ordinary meaning.”

Johnson v. United States , 559 U. S. ___, ___. “Personal” ordinarily refers to individuals. People do not generally use terms such as personal characteristics or personal correspondence to describe the characteristics or correspondence of corporations. In fact, “personal” is often used to mean precisely the opposite of business-related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company’s view. Dictionary definitions also suggest that “personal” does not ordinarily relate to artificial “persons” like corporations.

AT&T contends that its reading of “personal” is supported by the common legal usage of the word “person.” Yet while “person,” in a legal setting, often refers to artificial entities, AT&T’s effort to ascribe a corresponding legal meaning to “personal” again elides the difference between “person” and “personal.”

AT&T provides scant support for the proposition that “personal” denotes corporations, even in a legal context.

Edited March 2, 2011 by \

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It has to do with freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The above statement by Chief Justice Robert made it fairly clear that corporations aren't afforded the same personal rights as individuals. The 1st Amendment then should not apply to corporate lobbying.

[^_^ 5,021]

Grammar:

That crazy dude in Arizona (who's name I have already forgotten) was right. The government is using grammar to control us!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Grammar:

AT&T argues that the word “personal” in Exemption 7© incorporates the statutory definition of “person,” which includes corporations

, §551(2).

But adjectives do not always reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns. “Person” is a defined term in the statute; “personal” is not. When a statute does not define a term, the Court typically “give

the phrase its ordinary meaning.”

Johnson v. United States , 559 U. S. ___, ___. “Personal” ordinarily refers to individuals. People do not generally use terms such as personal characteristics or personal correspondence to describe the characteristics or correspondence of corporations. In fact, “personal” is often used to mean precisely the opposite of business-related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company’s view. Dictionary definitions also suggest that “personal” does not ordinarily relate to artificial “persons” like corporations.

AT&T contends that its reading of “personal” is supported by the common legal usage of the word “person.” Yet while “person,” in a legal setting, often refers to artificial entities, AT&T’s effort to ascribe a corresponding legal meaning to “personal” again elides the difference between “person” and “personal.”

AT&T provides scant support for the proposition that “personal” denotes corporations, even in a legal context.

Wow....some lawyer just earned his millions.

That crazy dude in Arizona (who's name I have already forgotten) was right. The government is using grammar to control us!!

Shazam!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So it looks like subpoena then.

That information is available realtime:

http://www.fec.gov/data/IndependentExpenditure.do?format=html

[Zero Sum 305]

That information is available realtime:

http://www.fec.gov/data/IndependentExpenditure.do?format=html

But information that isn't given to the FEC, then subpoena it is.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Haha, this is nothing look at the battle between Apple and Microsoft over the term "App Store"