Verizon Claims Free Speech Over NSA Wiretapping

xvx writes "Verizon is claiming that they have the right to hand over customer information to the US government under the First Amendment. 'Essentially, the argument is that turning over truthful information to the government is free speech, and the EFF and ACLU can't do anything about it. In fact, Verizon basically argues that the entire lawsuit is a giant SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit, and that the case is an attempt to deter the company from exercising its First Amendment right to turn over customer calling information to government security services.'"

Comments

How Orwellian

[mbone]

I think Orwell left out a slogan :

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Spying is Free Speach

Re:I dont have a clue?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Can someone please explain to me why corporations have the same constitutional rights as citizens do? Because they contribute vast sums of money to politicians of both parties.

Re:I wish there was a way

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had a choice about phone companies they may be right. Since there is no viable competition to the RBOC in my area and they are government regulated their argument holds less weight. The fact of the matter is that there is a legal prohibition against the government obtaining this information without a warrant. This argues strongly for the expectation of privacy. So should the government be able to do an end run around a law by going to a company whose very life they control by asking them to "voluntarily" give them the information they (the gov't that is) are forbidden by law to get except with a warrant. Sounds like something from 1984 (the book) to me!

Re:That's an interesting take on it.

[MobyDisk]

Nice try, but I don't think so. If this were the case, then copyright, medical privacy laws, laws protecting identity theft, etc. would all be unconstitutional. It just doesn't make sense. They are really grasping for straws.

Is This a Parody?

[Quantam]

The first amendment was supposed to protect dissenters from government suppression. Since then it has come to be considered protection from almost anyone who the speaker is speaking against. To use the first amendment for the benefit of the government against the people seems like a parody.

Is it 1982?

[SpacePunk]

You know it's coming folks. War is peace, freedom is slavery. More and more, companies and people are using phraseology, spurious logic, and blatant redefinition to justify doing evil things.

Common Misconception

[TheWoozle]

Verizon's lawyers are simply perpetuating a common misunderstanding of the First Amendment. Yes, we are free to say what we please. No, we are not free from the consequences of what we say.

In old example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, the problem is not the speech itself, but the resulting stampede and probable damage to people and property.

Slander is another example. You are free to stand up in public and say all sorts of nasty things about someone, but then they can sue you.

If Verizon wants to claim First Amendment rights, fine. We'll just start a class-action lawsuit.