Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Corporations Have Right to Privacy

[techs]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...her-corporations-have-right-to-privacy/63711/

If corporations are defined as people, do they have all the rights of individuals? After the Supreme Court defended the "personhood" of corporations -- and their accompanying First Amendment rights -- in this year's Citizens United case, critics of the decision asked this question. Will corporations be able to vote, they wondered? Will they have an individual's right to privacy?

The Court will weigh in on this last question, at least, on this year's docket. The justices have decided to review FCC v. AT&T, which concerns certain documents that AT&T handed over to the federal government during a 2004 billing probe. A trade association representing some of AT&T's competitors used the Freedom of Information Act to request access to these documents, which AT&T claimed would violate its privacy.


Philadelphia's Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of AT&T, finding that the Freedom of Information Act's "personal privacy" exemption applies to corporations--suggesting, as the Supreme Court did in Citizens United, that corporations share many of the same rights as individuals.


What's next? Will corporations get the right to vote?

 

[Paratus]

Don't worry Techs. Corps. don't need to vote do they........

 

[CycloWizard]

What's next? Will corporations get the right to vote?

They have to pay taxes, don't they? Taxation without representation is how this whole experiment got underway.

 

[ProfJohn]

In case the privacy certainly makes sense.

Think of it this way...

Does Ford have the right to ask for new GM designs via the freedom of information laws? After all the Feds owned GM and a lot of the behind the scenes stuff at GM was looked at by government officials.

 

[Anarchist420]

They seriously need to repeal the 14th Amendment and leave this up to the States.

I think corporations should have a right to privacy, but that's not supposed to protected universally. Only from the Federal Government.

 

[techs]

I think this decision will turn out to be every bit as important as the Dred Scott decision.

Corporate lawyers are already lined upt to assert the new definition of a corporation as a person.

Interestingly, in Alito's rush to provide funding to the Republican Party, he opened a HUGE can of worms.

I guarantee you there are progressive district attorneys out there right now getting ready to indict corporations for, say, manslaughter.

Here's an example. Say you make cars. Info starts coming in that the brakes are failing. If you wait even a day before announcing it and contacting the car owners, you could be indicted for reckless endangerment. The problem however, turns out to be rare, and most people can easily work around it. So you don't recall every car. And one person dies. That's manslaughter.

Most criminal laws apply to "persons" which why corporations up to now don't go to jail. However, now that the Supreme Court is saying corporations are persons, they should be covered under the law.

I wonder who would go to jail? The CEO? Board of Directors? Every person?

Of course it won't come to this. It would mean the end of corporations. No, corporations would have be legally protected against criminal laws.

And that's the probable end result. Imagine corporations immune from criminal prosecution. It boggles the mind.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I guarantee you there are progressive district attorneys out there right now getting ready to indict corporations for, say, manslaughter.

So rather than follow the law they will be looking for ways to forward their personal philosophy? That's cool. Maybe we'll have Creationism taught after all.

The real problem besides the hatred of corporations is that a certain level of privacy is needed for them to exist (and therefore your ability to eat) to exist. The problem is where the lines are drawn. When it's said a corporation is a person, that doesn't mean they are in a corporal sense. It's a way to define how they fit in the social structure. What is needed is a better definition of what that "person" is.

BTW, I think there is too much money in politics, and not just corporations. The union fatcats are just as bad.

Want to make a difference? Insist that no money or compensation be given by any lobbyist outside a decent dinner in a local restaurant by ANYONE. Let's have it be a crime to effectively bribe a politician, AND IF the politician accepts, then he is guilty of a crime of sufficient magnitude to warrant his removal from office.

How's that sit?

 

[ProfJohn]

I think this decision will turn out to be every bit as important as the Dred Scott decision.

Corporate lawyers are already lined upt to assert the new definition of a corporation as a person.

New as in 1819????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward
or
1886?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

The idea that corporations have some of the same individual protections as people has been around almost as long as the country.


BTW did you read the details of the case at hand or are you just trying to score a few 'points' for your side?

 

[techs]

So rather than follow the law they will be looking for ways to forward their personal philosophy? That's cool. Maybe we'll have Creationism taught after all.

The real problem besides the hatred of corporations is that a certain level of privacy is needed for them to exist (and therefore your ability to eat) to exist. The problem is where the lines are drawn. When it's said a corporation is a person, that doesn't mean they are in a corporal sense. It's a way to define how they fit in the social structure. What is needed is a better definition of what that "person" is.

BTW, I think there is too much money in politics, and not just corporations. The union fatcats are just as bad.

Want to make a difference? Insist that no money or compensation be given by any lobbyist outside a decent dinner in a local restaurant by ANYONE. Let's have it be a crime to effectively bribe a politician, AND IF the politician accepts, then he is guilty of a crime of sufficient magnitude to warrant his removal from office.

How's that sit?

Uh, so sorry. Supreme Court says you can't restrict how corporations spend their money since its not money its speech.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Uh, so sorry. Supreme Court says you can't restrict how corporations spend their money since its not money its speech.

But the SCOTUS doesn't say that it's legal for a Congressman to accept a bribe, does it?

 

[techs]

Uh, so sorry. Supreme Court says you can't restrict how corporations spend their money since its not money its speech.

But the SCOTUS doesn't say that it's legal for a Congressman to accept a bribe, does it?

But it's not a bribe. It's access

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

But it's not a bribe. It's access

So you aren't looking for a solution, you are looking to blame.

Clearly this isn't about whether there is corruption, but you wanting to piss on the SCOTUS because you didn't like their decision, and rather than go after the greed of those looking for money. Unfortunately some of those might be Democrats. It appears that you have two standards, one for one side and one for the other.

You want to stop the evil corporations from donating money, but you have no desire to keep ALL politicians in DC from taking it. That might hurt your cause. Hell, it might even hurt Obama and you can't have that, can you?

 

[sandorski]

Giving them the Right to Privacy would be total Fail.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hey- maybe corporations should enjoy the right against self-incrimination, too? When the govt demands records, they can just invoke their 5th amendment rights...

Maybe unions should just rework their charters so as to enjoy the freedoms of corporate personhood, too...

The whole notion of full corporate personhood is an absurdity, as was the SCOTUS decision wrt Citizens United. Corporations have no feelings, no thoughts, no opinions other than the ones of the people who run them, who are, indeed, persons.

 

[qliveur]

Want to make a difference? Insist that no money or compensation be given by any lobbyist outside a decent dinner in a local restaurant by ANYONE. Let's have it be a crime to effectively bribe a politician, AND IF the politician accepts, then he is guilty of a crime of sufficient magnitude to warrant his removal from office.

How's that sit?

That would sit very well with me.

 

[her209]

I didn't think a person was allowed to own and sell other persons... :hmm:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Giving them the Right to Privacy would be total Fail.

So Coke should have to reveal it's formula to it's competitors. KFC? Sure!

An unlimited right? No, none of us have that, but to strip everything? That's dumb. We need clearer definitions of what constitutes a corporate person and allow some rights.

 

[techs]

Want to make a difference? Insist that no money or compensation be given by any lobbyist outside a decent dinner in a local restaurant by ANYONE. Let's have it be a crime to effectively bribe a politician, AND IF the politician accepts, then he is guilty of a crime of sufficient magnitude to warrant his removal from office.

How's that sit?

That would sit very well with me.

WHOA!!!!

Maybe I didn't understand your previous posts, or you don't understand what's going on?

SCOTUS said you can't restrict campaign contributions by corporations,nor can force politicians or corporations to reveal the amount or who made them. Plus SCOTUS said a corporation can be up to 30 percent foreign owned to be covered by these rights(corporations are controlled by as little as 5 percent ownership, so effectively foreign corps can now donate to US election.)

Yet, Hayabusa is talking about actual physical bribery, not just the donations to a politicians campaign, no matter how much influence it has on the politician.

The SCOTUS just said these campaign contributions are an absolute Constitutional right, no matter how much they resemble bribery, or are actually money that purchased a vote quid pro quo.

Hayabusa is arguing against bribery. Well, SCOTUS didn't address that because it was clearly illegal and the decision doesn't change that at all.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

WHOA!!!!

Maybe I didn't understand your previous posts, or you don't understand what's going on?

SCOTUS said you can't restrict campaign contributions by corporations,nor can force politicians or corporations to reveal the amount or who made them. Plus SCOTUS said a corporation can be up to 30 percent foreign owned to be covered by these rights(corporations are controlled by as little as 5 percent ownership, so effectively foreign corps can now donate to US election.)

Yet, Hayabusa is talking about actual physical bribery, not just the donations to a politicians campaign, no matter how much influence it has on the politician.

The SCOTUS just said these campaign contributions are an absolute Constitutional right, no matter how much they resemble bribery, or are actually money that purchased a vote quid pro quo.

Hayabusa is arguing against bribery. Well, SCOTUS didn't address that because it was clearly illegal and the decision doesn't change that at all.

I am talking about selling one's office. The SCOTUS has effectively addressed one avenue. Personally I would like to see limitations which would hurt both parties, not just the reps.

What you may not have seen is that I support a Constitutional amendment to revamp the whole process. That would remove or reduce union, corporate AND party considerations which effectively eliminate serious attempts from "The Big Two".

There is no reason that Congress cannot hold themselves accountable at the office level. See if either the Reps or Dems support that.

 

[theeedude]

Knowing the "strict constructionists," corporations are going to have more "rights" than people before too long. They'll give corporations right to privacy but will deny it to pregnant women.

 

[Carmen813]

Corporations are not people, they are legal fictions created to reduce financial risk, and as such, they are granted SOME rights similar to those of a person.

It was idiotic and undemocratic in the extreme to allow corporations the ability to expend unlimited quantities of money in political campaigns. Corporations are not democratic, and there is very little your average employee could do voice their opinion about who their company is going go support. Say what you want about unions, but at least their leadership is typically elected by it's members.

t's entirely possible for these corporations to spend profits (that they earn as a result of the work of the little guy) supporting candidates whose positions will hurt their employees, but help their bottom line. The idea that corporations should be given the right to vote is utterly psychotic, it's extremely easy to create a corporation and there is no limit on how many you could create...this would create voter fraud of the highest order.

In terms of privacy, there is little reason to have a regulatory agency to even exist if a company can hide behind the cloud of a "right to privacy." Companies can already protect their inventions with patents. If the government demanded an individual turn over documents, say for a tax probe, does anyone honestly think the "right to privacy" argument would fly?

 

[BoberFett]

New as in 1819????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward
or
1886?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

The idea that corporations have some of the same individual protections as people has been around almost as long as the country.


BTW did you read the details of the case at hand or are you just trying to score a few 'points' for your side?

He believes believes corporate personhood started in the past 11 years. Check his other Supreme Court thread.

Frankly, the guy is borderline retarded and unstable. It's only a matter of time until he goes dahunan on us.

 

[sandorski]

So Coke should have to reveal it's formula to it's competitors. KFC? Sure!

An unlimited right? No, none of us have that, but to strip everything? That's dumb. We need clearer definitions of what constitutes a corporate person and allow some rights.

/facepalm

Has nothing to do with Right to Privacy. Hell, if it did we'd all know the Recipe for Coke right now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

/facepalm

Has nothing to do with Right to Privacy. Hell, if it did we'd all know the Recipe for Coke right now.

Apparently you didn't read the OP. He's celebrating a catastrophe and has shown predisposition for authoritarianism. It seems that if he has his way there would be no rights for corporations. If their destruction isn't part of his ultimate good he hasn't said anything which dispels that impression.

What I did say in this thread is that the concept of corporate personhood has long need a clearer definition which would be to everyone's benefit.

 

[WHAMPOM]

So Coke should have to reveal it's formula to it's competitors. KFC? Sure!

An unlimited right? No, none of us have that, but to strip everything? That's dumb. We need clearer definitions of what constitutes a corporate person and allow some rights.

Strawman much? This about open books for corporate political contributions. And while we are at it, the political action committees too.