Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon Claims Free Speech Over NSA Wiretapping

Posted by Zonk on from the corporations-shold-have-the-right-to-have-babies dept.

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.'"

12 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. That's an interesting take on it. by wiredog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since Free Speech is enshrined directly in the Constitution while Privacy is not (it's an indirect right. See Roe Vs Wade for more info), they could have a good (legally, not morally) argument.

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
    1. Re:That's an interesting take on it. by Bagheera · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I understand it, Commercial Speech is not protected under the 1st amendment. Customer records would certainly fall under that definition. The reality is, Verizon's clutching at straws to try and make it look like they're just exercising their rights by divulging customer information for no good reason.

      --
      Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
    2. Re:That's an interesting take on it. by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's also well established that commercial speech can be regulated more than individual speech. An in this case it is indeed by ECPA and other statutes limiting disclosure of information about private communications.

      Generally, any facts which come into your hands by legitimate means are yours to publish. The exceptions are when you have a special duty of privacy (e.g. attorneys and physicians), information that you are contractually obligated to keep private, or commercial information that is regulated.

      It's clear to me that Verizon doesn't have much chance with this line of argument, the new Supreme Court being something of a wild card. If they win, it will have an interesting side effect. All communications carried by Verizon could potentially be claimed by them as their property to dispose of as they wish. They could sell the content of your text messages or emails, or a list of who and by whom you are called.

      It's a pretty far out argument, but as I say they may find friends on the newly radicalized Supreme Court.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:That's an interesting take on it. by LehiNephi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It really makes me wonder how much pressure Verizon finds itself under. We know the public and legal pressure they face in the courts as a result of handing over that information, but to make a statement like this certainly gives the appearance of "grasping at straws," as you say. That means that there's an awful lot of pressure coming from the other side. And since handing customer information over to the government is not (in and of itself) in Verizon's own interest, there must be some serious pressure coming from somewhere.

      I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but I think there's more than meets the eye here.

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    4. Re:That's an interesting take on it. by trianglman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, it has been well documented, in numerous Supreme Court rulings, that for there to be free speech, there must be the ability to speak privately without fear of being recorded. It is a mixture of the First and Fourth Amendments that allows things like wiretapping only after court review.

      --
      Clones are people two.
  2. Re:If it really is "protected free speech" ... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You've just applied "If you want protection, you have something to be protected from" to corporations. That seems rather analogous to arguments made against personal privacy from government security.

    When did we come full circle?

    --
    tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
  3. Precedent by RyoShin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, looks like we've been given a free pass.

    Who wants to be the first to tap into the phone lines of Verizon execs and lawyers to hand over to the government? A Slashdot is fine, too.

    Oh right, we're just citizens. I guess that means this "right" is only really held by Verizon.

  4. Is anyone here under an NDA with Verizon? by kimvette · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Try posting your confidential client information here and see if Verizon considers it freedom of speech. Things like, oh, passwords, code snippets, and so forth. Does the first amendment cover posting client information?

    Will Verizon sue me for making this suggestion to their contractors and employees, despite my merely exercising my freedom of speech as provided for under the First Amendment of the Constitution of The united States of America?

    Or is the first amendment intended to protect voicing of unpopular opinions, especially political opinions, and not to be used to reveal confidential client information?

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  5. I'm a bit confused... by arkham6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since when do corporations get to claim protections from the constitution? Since when do they get first amendment rights?

    Does this mean that corporations can start owning firearms and having their own militias, per the 2nd amendment? Does this mean that they can't testify against themselves per the 5th amendment?

  6. Re:I wish there was a way by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "However, if they did not wave those rights in the contracts with customers, then their argument seems sound to me."

    Companies aren't people, and as such do not have the same rights that people have. Verizon is grasping at straws to avoid having their ass handed to them in a class-action lawsuit.

  7. Do corporations enjoy constitutional rights? by erroneus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a pretty ridiculous argument to make in light of the fact that there are already laws in place to restrict that specific type of information. Further, Verizon isn't a person, so I'm not sure that it would qualify as an entity capable of weilding first amendment rights.

  8. Bingo! by Gription · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (To risk the wrath of our Corporate Overlords. . .)
    The first amendment is a right of The People. A lot of the problems that we have stem from lawmakers (conveniently) forgetting that the Bill of Rights are the people's rights and that corporations clearly aren't people and unless there is an amendment to the constitution to change it, corporations do not get those protections.

    It think the confusion seems to spring from the fact that campaign contributions and lobbying money mostly comes from corporations. I wonder if a blanket ban of contributions from any source other then individual people would make anything work better...