3 ms·
If companies are people, isn't disclosing private information belonging to that company is a violation of a person's privacy? Doesn't that mean the gov't also h
by sliverstorm 13y ago
If companies are people, isn't disclosing private information belonging to that company is a violation of a person's privacy? Doesn't that mean the gov't also has a constitutional obligation to not break the privacy of companies?
What do you even do when you have conflicting constitutional obligations...
- skywhopper 13y agoYou err on the side of protecting the innocent and allowing the guilty to go free. That's the entire premise behind our justice system--that it's better to allow criminals to get away with crimes than to punish innocent people.
- dllthomas 13y ago"That's the entire premise behind our justice system--that it's better to allow criminals to get away with crimes than to punish innocent people." Well, that's the premise behind many aspects of our justice system. No justice system at all accomplishes it better than any justice system at all, without other considerations, so it's clearly not the entire premise behind the whole of our justice system.
- maxerickson 13y agoThe straightforward resolution is that the government shouldn't enter into agreements that create the conflict. (I guess the more complicated answer is that there are lots of legal cases determining how to balance the two sides in such conflicts)
- nness 13y agoInteresting thought, but you've completely misunderstood the specifics of corporate personhood. Personal privacy is not reserved for incorporated entities at all.
- judk 13y agoThen you ask the judge for a gag order so the secret info doesn't reach the public.