All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Freedom of Speech and Segmenting the Citizens
Unformatted Document Text:  ICA-10-10582 4 protection of the freedom of the press. As it has been demonstrated in the Supreme Court’s application of Scrutiny of First Amendment to Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 , corporate political speech is legally considered to fall under the protection of the First Amendment (Buckley v Valeo, 1976). Hence, as Gandy (1996) notes, the First Amendment claims of the direct marketers pose an important impediment to pro-privacy policies (p.98). The fact that the corporations take refuge in freedom of speech as a means of preventing policies that would limit their surveillance practices leads to an important tension between the First Amendment claims 1 of corporations and the privacy rights of individuals. The existence of such a tension calls for an approach which will remind us that the First Amendment has a much wider scope than simply protecting the freedom of speech of corporations. More importantly, such an approach will show that privacy serves to protect that wider scope. Consequently, this approach should focus on the functions of First Amendment that are being jeopardized by surveillance. The question becomes one of determining whether there is a legal framework in which we can incorporate the functions of privacy under the shelter of constitutional rights. Such a framework exists and it has been described in detail by Robert C. Post (1995). Post explains that “in ordinary adjudication, courts follow the principle of stare decisis” (p.26). As Post indicates, this principle is fundamental for the rule of law because it ensures the existence of even-handed, stable and predictable decisions (p.26). However, the problem with respect to privacy is that the principles governing stare decisis impose an unnatural stability, often leading to the rejection of privacy claims either because of lack of precedents or because of precedents that have tended to rule against previous privacy claims. A second approach that Post mentions is the 1 For various examples of cases where courts have ruled in favor of the First Amendment claims of corporations, See, Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission, (1980); Bolger et al. v. Youngs Corp., (1983); Lysaght v. State of New Jersey,(1993); Bland v. Fessler, (1996). However, See State of Minnesota v. Casino Marketing (1992), for an example of a case where the court ruled against the First Amendment claims of a corporation.

Authors: Popescu, Mihaela. and Baruh, Lemi.
first   previous   Page 5 of 26   next   last



background image
ICA-10-10582
4
protection of the freedom of the press. As it has been demonstrated in the Supreme Court’s
application of Scrutiny of First Amendment to Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments
of 1974
,
corporate political speech is legally considered to fall under the protection of the
First Amendment (Buckley v Valeo, 1976). Hence, as Gandy (1996) notes, the First
Amendment claims of the direct marketers pose an important impediment to pro-privacy
policies (p.98).
The fact that the corporations take refuge in freedom of speech as a means of
preventing policies that would limit their surveillance practices leads to an important tension
between the First Amendment claims
1
of corporations and the privacy rights of individuals.
The existence of such a tension calls for an approach which will remind us that the First
Amendment has a much wider scope than simply protecting the freedom of speech of
corporations. More importantly, such an approach will show that privacy serves to protect
that wider scope. Consequently, this approach should focus on the functions of First
Amendment that are being jeopardized by surveillance. The question becomes one of
determining whether there is a legal framework in which we can incorporate the functions of
privacy under the shelter of constitutional rights. Such a framework exists and it has been
described in detail by Robert C. Post (1995). Post explains that “in ordinary adjudication,
courts follow the principle of stare decisis” (p.26). As Post indicates, this principle is
fundamental for the rule of law because it ensures the existence of even-handed, stable and
predictable decisions (p.26). However, the problem with respect to privacy is that the
principles governing stare decisis impose an unnatural stability, often leading to the rejection
of privacy claims either because of lack of precedents or because of precedents that have
tended to rule against previous privacy claims. A second approach that Post mentions is the
1
For various examples of cases where courts have ruled in favor of the First Amendment claims of corporations, See,
Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission, (1980); Bolger et al. v. Youngs Corp., (1983); Lysaght v. State of
New Jersey,(1993); Bland v. Fessler, (1996). However, See State of Minnesota v. Casino Marketing (1992), for an example
of a case where the court ruled against the First Amendment claims of a corporation.


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 5 of 26   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.