Corporate Privacy

In the last two days, three remarkable things – in my life, anyway – have occurred. Justice Scalia has written two straight opinions with which I agree and Justice Roberts has made me laugh. Normally, of course, I don’t trouble you with my personal reactions to judicial opinions; they are what they are and when one piques my interest, my job is to explain it as best I can.

Both of the opinions by Justice Scalia require a longer post than I have time for today. The chuckle from Justice Roberts came in the Court’s opinion today holding that corporations – however much they get preferential treatment as real people – do not get treated as real persons with a right to “personal privacy” under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The corporation in the case, AT&T, argued that it was entitled to personal privacy. Here is the last paragraph of Justice Robert’s opinion for the Court.

We reject the argument that because “person” is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase“personal privacy” in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well. The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law 12 FCC v. AT&T INC. enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Is Nudity Legal?

Thoroughgood v. Tinkerson

Judge Whiner delivered the opinion of the court:

That indefatigable protector of our Nation’s moral fiber, Marjorie Thoroughgood, is before this court once again.  This time she asks the court to issue an injunction ordering her neighbors, the Tinkersons, to stop walking around their own house naked.

This contretemps began when the Tinkersons first moved to “Fawn Acres,” the gated community in which Mr. And Mrs. Thoroughgood have resided for many years.  Each of the houses – nay, estates – in Fawn Acres sit on lots that are at least five acres in size.  Although their properties abut each other, the evidence before the court is that the Tinkerson’s house is almost one mile away from the Thoroughgood house and is visible to the Thoroughgoods only from their roof.  Access to the Tinkerson estate is via a road that traverses the front edge of the Thoroughgood estate.  Mr. and Mrs. Tinkerson drive by the Thoroughgood property each day.

Soon after the Tinkersons moved in, Ms. Thoroughgood was out collecting her mail when Ms. Tinkerson drove by. Ms.Thoroughgood noticed that the Tinkerson car had prestige license plates.  Such license plates allow the owner of the car – for an additional annual fee – to put whatever she wants on the license plate.  These prestige plates are legal in this state and quite popular with the inhabitants of Fawn Acres, most of whom drive Mercedes-Benz automobiles and are rich.  Fawn Acre residents use the prestige license plates to drive home the message of their richness to those outside Fawn Acres who are not rich.

The meaning of the Tinkerson plate stumped Ms.Thoroughgood. The letters on the license plate were, “NDBUFF.”  It took a few days before Ms. Thoroughgood ascertained their meaning.  She accomplished this by pronouncing the first two letters out loud and adding the correct pronunciation of “buff.”  Ms. Thoroughgood’s suspicions were aroused.  She surmised that the license plate carried the not so subtle implication that Mr. and Mrs. Tinkerson approved of nudity and might even be practicing nudists, parading around their private estate without any clothes on.

Ms. Thoroughgood immediately sought confirmation of her dark misgivings.  The reader will remember that almost a mile separates the Thoroughgood residence and the Tinkerson house.  Ms. Thoroughgood could not see that far with the only aid available to her, a small pair of opera glasses.  She accosted her husband, demanding that he immediately purchase a more powerful pair of binoculars.  The evidence is that he was only too happy to comply,  Ms. Tinkerson is quite attractive physically as the court itself noticed during the trial of this matter.  Mr. Thoroughgood returned home, not only with a pair of powerful binoculars, but also a small telescope and tripod to hold it.

That evening Ms. Thoroughgood’s worst suspicions were confirmed.  By erecting the telescope on their roof, the Thoroughgoods were able to see all the way into the Tinkerson house and, to Ms. Thoroughgood’s disgust, saw both Mr. and Mrs. Tinkerson in their own living room absolutely naked.

Ms. Thoroughgood filed this action the next day, asking this court to order (1) the Tinkersons to cease and desist from nakedness; (2) make them replace the offending license plate; and (3) force Mr. Thoroughgood to come down from the roof.

Not surprisingly, the Tinkersons claim that they possess a right to privacy in their own home.  The basis for this claim rests in a line of United States Supreme Court decisions pretending to find such a “right to privacy” in the venerated Constitution of the United States.  It is true that, for a short while in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, people known as “liberals” held seats on the Supreme Court. Those “liberal” justices discovered in the Constitution a supposed right to privacy.   They called it a “penumbra.”  Of course, that is an aberration in the long history of Puritanism in this country; those liberal justices are long gone and their “penumbras” relegated to jurisprudential shadows.

Regarding the Tinkerson’s claim to privacy in their own home, I myself have read the Constitution from cover to cover and the word “privacy” appears no where in it.  Obviously the Founding Fathers knew the meaning of the word and if they intended for us to have privacy they would have told us.  Because they did not, I must conclude that no such right to privacy exists.  Our houses provide us shelter, not privacy.  There is no telling what people would get up to in their own homes if they thought houses were private.  It is a pernicious idea and I am well pleased that I have the opportunity to strike it down.

Remembering Mark Twain’s dictum that “Naked people have little or no influence in society,” I hereby order the Tinkersons to put some clothes on.  It is for their own good as well as the Nation’s.  The offending license plate must be replaced with something less salacious.  As for Mr. Thoroughgood, he can either come down from his roof or take up bird watching.  That is no business of this court – unless he starts enjoying himself.

IT IS SO ORDERED.