Qbkspit
FCC v. AT&T is a Supreme Court case that was filled by Federal Communication Commission to appeal the Third Circuit court ruling in AT&T v. FCC case. These cases concerned on the issue of whether corporations, such as AT&T, had a right to personal privacy under the Freedom of Information Act. The Third Circuit’s decision was overruled by Supreme Court which defined that a term “personal privacy” does not apply to corporations. [1]
Background:
editIn 2004, AT&T and FCC agreed to produce an “E-Rate” program that assists schools and libraries across the US to obtain affordable telecommunications and Internet access. Later, AT&T disclosed to FCC that it might have overcharged the Government for its services. FCC started an investigation process which ended in a $500,000 settlement paid by AT&T. Many AT&T customers, represented by CompTel company, then requested FCC to make public all the pleadings and correspondences between FCC and AT&T from the investigation. AT&T, however, argued that FCC has no right to do so, referring to the Freedom of Information Act §552(b)(7)(C) which exempts records if their disclosure might lead to “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”.[2] AT&T filled a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On September 22nd, 2009 Third Circuit released its decision favoring AT&T Inc.[3] The court agreed that the use of word “personal” derives from a word “person”, which legally includes corporations.[4]
Supreme Court Case:
editNot content with the court decision, FCC appealed in the Supreme Court. The case was argued on January 19th, 2011. AT&T Inc. position remained the same, where it focused on the definition of the word “personal” being directly related to a legal meaning of a term “person”. In Supreme Court’s ruling published on March 1, 2011, however, the definition of a term “personal” has been regarded differently. The opinion states: “Personal” ordinarily refers to individuals. People do not generally use terms such as personal characteristics or personal correspondence to describe the characteristics or correspondence of corporations.” Therefore, the Third Circuit ruling was reversed by Supreme Court’s decision. [5]
Implications:
editMany argue that the Supreme Court decision grants more control to and interference of the Government into businesses and the market and might negatively impact the free market. [6]
References
edit- ^ Supreme Court of the United States (2011). "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. v. AT&T INC. ET AL" (PDF).
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Lustigman, Andrew. "FCC v. AT&T, Inc.: The Lack of Personal Privacy for Corporations". Retrieved 15 March 2011.
- ^ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT (2009). "AT&T INC, Petitioner v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent" (PDF).
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Snyder, Cary. "3rd Circuit Rules Personal Privacy Interest Applies to Corporations". College of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
- ^ Supreme Court of the United States (2011). "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. v. AT&T INC. ET AL" (PDF).
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Trevino, Joshua. "FCC v. AT&T: what's at stake". Retrieved 15 March 2011.
Mentor
editHi, welcome to Wikipedia. I've been selected as your mentor to help you through your project. As luck would have it, I have a little bit of a background in telecommunications. I worked for AT&T for 10 years. I started as a sales rep with Pacific Bell, was promoted to management in a year and became a software developer for SBC Communications and a fraud investigator. Before the merger with AT&T, I transferred to Nevada Bell as an analyst and finished my career with them running the dispatch center in Reno, Nevada before moving on to bigger and better things. I've been editing on Wikipedia for a little over 5 years. I mostly work on articles related to my hobbies (custom knife collecting, music, animals, martial arts) and a few related to my business as a sportwriter (professional and amateur boxing, mma, collegiate wrestling) and as a firearms and combatives instructor. The writing style on wikipedia is encyclopedic and in what is known as a summary-style; it often reminds me of writing a term paper as opposed to a magazine or newspaper article. I can help you out mostly in the form of finding reliable sources and formatting references. If you have any questions, leave me a message on my talk page or send me an email for any "offline correspondence", that link is on the left hand side of my talk page. I look forward to working with you.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
DYK nomination of FCC v. AT&T Inc.
edit
Hello! Your submission of FCC v. AT&T Inc. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
DYK for FCC v. AT&T Inc.
edit | On 12 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article FCC v. AT&T Inc., which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in FCC v. AT&T Inc., the US Supreme Court struck a blow to corporate personhood and held that corporations cannot claim exempt status from Freedom of Information Act requests? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello! There is an article that has been nominated for deletion regarding the Michigan State football team. I noticed you were an alumni, so I thought I would let you know in case you have any interest in participating with the discussion. If so, please just click on the Title as I have linked it straight to the page's deletion review. If you wish to see the article itself, it is titled Michigan State Miracle. Any thoughts, ideas, or edits that would help improve the page itself would also be appreciated!