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

[danarhea]

Reporting from Washington — 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.

This was a unanimous decision, which probably left Chief Justice Roberts with aching sides due to excessive laughing. And, face it, the claim that an artificial person has all the rights of a real one is laughable. This was an attempt by AT&T to do an end run around existing law by claiming that, as a person, it had the same Fourth Amendment rights as a real person, and as such, was not required to give out information under the Freedom of Information Act.

What AT&T attempted to claim is tantamount to a commercial I saw one time, that equated a nicotine patch that was being advertised as medicine.

Sorry, AT&T. No more weasel words from you. Time for you to comply with the law, and start producing the records that the law requires you to provide.

You are not a real person, AT&T. Get used to that fact, which is only reasonable, because if you were a real person, then I should really be able to kick your ****ing ass. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

 

[Temporal]

I support the ruling, but I'm concerned about the double standard. Are corporations persons or are they not? I don't think they should be, but if they are, then why do they not get the same rights? If they don't have the same rights, then why give them personhood?

I support any ruling that strips corporations of personhood rights. There should be a different subset of laws that apply to business.

 

[Troubadour]

Corporations don't have any rights apart from the property rights of their investors. Everything beyond that has been a corrupt invention of conservative courts to turn America into an auction-house oligarchy.

 

[Hatuey]

This seems like a weird ruling and I'm not sure I understand the implications of it. Didn't Robert's court just rule that corporations were people?

Supreme Court Rules Corporations Are People, Spending Is Speech

In a dramatic upheaval that sharply divided the Supreme Court, a 5-4 majority ruled Thursday that under the First Amendment Congress may not bar corporations and unions from using their own money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates for office.

The court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruled that the ban on direct corporate expenditures before elections, with criminal penalties, is a powerful chill on legitimate political speech. "Its purpose and effect are to silence entities whose voices the government deems to be suspect," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."​

If the assertion that corporations are an association of people and that gives them the protection of the 1st amendment, why doesn't the same logic give them the protections of the 4th? Anybody care to explain this to me? Turtle? RightinNYC?

 

[Councilman]

Corporations don't have any rights apart from the property rights of their investors. Everything beyond that has been a corrupt invention of conservative courts to turn America into an auction-house oligarchy.

I could agree with you except this does create a double standard since the Court ruled a few years ago that Corporations had the same Free Speech Rights as people and could therefore donate to political campaigns.

This makes no logical since unless they go back and clarify some distinction between these two rules.

I agree that this ruling was right and proper and with the OP that the question is laughable.

 

[Your Star]

I support this ruling, but it seems contradictory to the ruling a few years ago that ruled that a cooperation could donate to political campaigns because of it's 1st amendment rights.

 

[Troubadour]

I could agree with you except this does create a double standard since the Court ruled a few years ago that Corporations had the same Free Speech Rights as people and could therefore donate to political campaigns.

The ruling had no legal basis, and may have been invalid in light of several members of the majority having failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest. It was basically Dredd Scott in reverse, asserting that something which has no essential existence is a person. I would have no problem with that if the decision did not, ipso facto, compromise the rights of real human beings by granting them to organizations with inherently more power to impose their will. If one were to accept Citizens United, then corporations have a right to vote in addition to the votes of their individual employees and investors - e.g., owners of corporations would have two votes: One as themselves, and one acting on behalf of their business. In fact, they would have unlimited votes if they just created as many corporations as they could afford to register, and elections would then be reduced to auctions.

This makes no logical since unless they go back and clarify some distinction between these two rules.

In every legal question there is the internal judicial rationale - i.e., that which is based on past jurisprudence - and that which is fundamental law / justice, based on the explicit Constitution and common sense. For instance, abortion rights are largely based on jurisprudence stemming from Roe v. Wade, which was based on an implicit interpretation of the autonomy rights of women vs. the rights of the state to regulate medical practices - however, conservatives who argue that it has no explicit foundation are correct. However, I still support abortion rights because I don't hold the power of states to impose almost exclusively religion-based prohibitions to be a valid counterweight to the individual autonomy of women. In the case of Citizens United, however, the courts granted rights that don't exist to entities that don't really exist in order to empower the individuals who comprise them above and beyond their fellow citizens. In other words, it was simply to give the rich explicitly more political power than everyone else through their corporate proxies. That is not only legally moribund, but a direct assault on the Constitution.

 

[Temporal]

This seems like a weird ruling and I'm not sure I understand the implications of it. Didn't Robert's court just rule that corporations were people?

Supreme Court Rules Corporations Are People, Spending Is Speech


If the assertion that corporations are an association of people and that gives them the protection of the 1st amendment, why doesn't the same logic give them the protections of the 4th? Anybody care to explain this to me? Turtle? RightinNYC?

That's basically what I'm asking.

 

[j-mac]

That's basically what I'm asking.

It is confusing....I don't know if this will help but check it out...





j-mac

 

[rathi]

The ruling that corporations should be treated as person is downright moronic. The whole point of corporations is that they can be bought and sold. If they actually had personal rights, that would be considered slavery. There is no way around that hideous contradiction and the entire concept is inherently broken. There is little point in looking for legal consistency when it is non-existent to start with.

 

[danarhea]

The ruling that corporations should be treated as person is downright moronic. The whole point of corporations is that they can be bought and sold. If they actually had personal rights, that would be considered slavery. There is no way around that hideous contradiction and the entire concept is inherently broken. There is little point in looking for legal consistency when it is non-existent to start with.

Yes, this is a violation of the 13th Amendment. We need an abolitionist movement, the sooner the better. Corporations need to be freed from slavery. And, of course, the only way to do this is to kill them all, legally that is. I am serious. We need to kill artificial persons in order to free them. But we can't wait too long. If we do end up waiting too many years, then we will be facing serious opposition from the IBAR Union (International Brotherhood of Androids and Robots). :mrgreen:

 

[Hicup]

That's basically what I'm asking.

Oh dear, really? If you read both decisions there was a clear "distinction" between what was being argued. In Citizens United, corporations, along with unions and organizations were considered protected under the umbrella that ALSO protects United States citizens. It DID NOT say that a corporation is a person..


Really people? I expected more.


Tim-

 

[apdst]

I'm curious as to whether, or not, this pertains to soul proprieterships, too. If so, then I have a huge problem with it.

Overall, though, I believe that corporations should have certain confidentiality rights. There are some things, such as R&D projects, that I don't feel the public has the right to know about.

 

[Hicup]

I'm curious as to whether, or not, this pertains to soul proprieterships, too. If so, then I have a huge problem with it.

Overall, though, I believe that corporations should have certain confidentiality rights. There are some things, such as R&D projects, that I don't feel the public has the right to know about.

They do, and so do you and I. This decision did not change that at all. What they don't have, and neither do you and I, is a right to privacy that is unreasonable. In litigation primarily.. The decision simply clarified this concept.


Tim-

 

[apdst]

They do, and so do you and I. This decision did not change that at all. What they don't have, and neither do you and I, is a right to privacy that is unreasonable. In litigation primarily.. The decision simply clarified this concept.


Tim-

Oh. So, this is one of those faux decisions to remove the gray from an area?

 

[Hicup]

Oh. So, this is one of those faux decisions to remove the gray from an area?

Yes. As I understand it. AT&T attempted to keep certain intellectual property from being "discovered". (Happens all the time by the way) They tried to argue that this property was tantamount to personal medical records, and the like. The Supreme Court wasn't having anything to do with that, and thus ruled exactly how they should have. To the letter of the Constitution... For a change..

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court 5-4, ruled that coporations, and organizations had an implied right to protection under the first amendment, and that, protection did not end simply because their speech was political in nature.


Tim-

 

[PeteEU]

But but did the same moronic court not state that when it came to political donations then corporations were the same as individuals or something like that?

 

[Slartibartfast]

This was a unanimous decision, which probably left Chief Justice Roberts with aching sides due to excessive laughing. And, face it, the claim that an artificial person has all the rights of a real one is laughable. This was an attempt by AT&T to do an end run around existing law by claiming that, as a person, it had the same Fourth Amendment rights as a real person, and as such, was not required to give out information under the Freedom of Information Act.

What AT&T attempted to claim is tantamount to a commercial I saw one time, that equated a nicotine patch that was being advertised as medicine.

Sorry, AT&T. No more weasel words from you. Time for you to comply with the law, and start producing the records that the law requires you to provide.

You are not a real person, AT&T. Get used to that fact, which is only reasonable, because if you were a real person, then I should really be able to kick your ****ing ass. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

If they are not persons in this case, I believe it sheds new light on their citizens united ruling.

 

[Hicup]

But but did the same moronic court not state that when it came to political donations then corporations were the same as individuals or something like that?

Yes, and no. It stated that they are like persons in this regard, NOT that they ARE persons. The distinction is what you're missing.


Tim-