The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that corporations do not have a right of personal privacy<\/strong> under freedom of information laws in an opinion that derided AT&T for its grammatical conclusions.\u00a0 As with many cases that reach the high Courts there was a question as to the meaning of a particular word that was not defined by the law.<\/p>\n It has long been held by the Supreme Court and many state laws consider corporations as a “person”<\/strong> for the purpose of many statutes, including criminal laws.\u00a0 However, does this mean that personal privacy<\/strong> applies to a corporation or is the personification merely an identification of an entity. The case involves AT&T\u2019s quest to keep secret information gathered in an investigation by the Federal Communications Commission. The company sought an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act<\/strong> for records that \u201ccould reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.\u201d<\/p>\n “We trust that AT&T will not take it personally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote at the conclusion of his 8-0 opinion<\/a> (PDF) for the court.<\/p>\n \u201cAdjectives typically reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns, but not always,\u201d Roberts wrote. \u201cSometimes they acquire distinct meanings of their own. The noun \u2018crab\u2019 refers variously to a crustacean and a type of apple, while the related adjective \u2018crabbed\u2019 can refer to handwriting that is \u2018difficult to read.\u2019 \u2026 \u2018Corny\u2019 can mean \u2018using familiar and stereotyped formulas believed to appeal to the unsophisticated,\u2019 \u2026 which has little to do with \u2018corn.\u2019 \u2026 And while \u2018crank\u2019 is ‘a part of anaxis bent at right angles,\u2019 \u2018cranky\u2019 can mean \u2018given to fretful fussiness.\u2019 \u201d\u00a0 Because \u201cpersonal\u201d is not defined in the statute<\/strong>, Roberts wrote, it must be given its ordinary meaning<\/strong>. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the decision.<\/p>\n The AT&T opinion is in contrast to the controversial Supreme Court decision<\/a> in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which treated corporations as persons with free speech rights to spend money in federal election campaigns.\u00a0 Free speech rights may apply to corporations but no personal privacy rights will be extended to the corporate world.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Freedom of Information Act’s Privacy Exception Does Not Apply to Corporations<\/h2>\n
Court’s Give the Ordinary Meaning To Words Not Otherwise Defined in the Laws<\/h3>\n