Wojtek
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Eubulides <paraconsistent at comcast.net>wrote:
>
> [Mereological mayhem for methodological individualism]
>
>
>
> http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/as-citizens-united-turns-1-u.s.-supreme-court-considers-corporate-personhoo
>
> As Citizens United Turns 1, U.S. Supreme Court Considers Corporate
> Personhood Again
> by Marian Wang
> ProPublica, Jan. 19, 2011, 1:37 p.m.
>
> The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on a case between AT&T and the
> Federal Communications Commission, revisiting the legal concept of
> “corporate personhood” last strengthened under the court’s Citizen United
> ruling on corporate campaign spending. (That controversial ruling has its
> first anniversary this week.)
>
> The case before the court focuses on whether AT&T, a corporation, can stop
> government agencies from releasing information obtained for law enforcement
> purposes by claiming such disclosures would violate the company’s “personal
> privacy.”
>
> The phrase is included as an exemption in the text of the Freedom of
> Information Act, a federal law that instructs government agencies on what
> information to make public. As the SCOTUS blog notes, however, there’s no
> specific definition of the words “personal privacy,” so it’s not clear
> whether a corporation can qualify as a person in this case.
>
> The lower court, the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, sided with AT&T in an
> earlier ruling, stating that corporations are capable of being embarrassed,
> harassed and stigmatized by public disclosures. If the Supreme Court agrees,
> it could limit how much information federal agencies are able to release
> about the companies they've investigated. (Here's Bloomberg, with more
> background.)
>
> In the appeal before the high court, a review of the briefs in support of
> each side shows a number of news organizations and government openness and
> watchdog groups backing up the FCC. Major business groups—namely the
> National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce and the
> Business Roundtable—have filed briefs in support of AT&T.
>
> Justice Elena Kagan, it’s worth noting, was solicitor general at the time
> when the FCC and U.S. government petitioned the Supreme Court to review the
> AT&T case. She has had to recuse herself from considering it, and should the
> court split 4-4 without her, the lower court’s decision would stand.
>
> Kagan’s successor as solicitor general, Neal Katyal, has argued that “a
> corporation itself can no more be embarrassed, harassed, or stigmatized than
> a stone.”
>
> According to early reports on the day’s proceedings, the high court showed
> signs that it agreed. A transcript [PDF] of the oral arguments has also been
> made available.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>