|
|
<< CA Senate Backs Immigrant Freedom Ride | Main | Anti-Freedom Views of the Right >> June 30, 2003A Really Important Court DecisionOkay, in a week of blockbuster cases at the federal level, I still think this decision by the California Supreme Court is more important. The summary: a fired employee, Kourosh Hamidi, bombarded former colleagues at Intel with email complaints about age discrimination at the company. A lower state court issued an injunction against Hamidi as a "trespasser" on Intel's computer system. The California Supreme Court rejected the decision: In addition to saying Hamidi did not commit trespassing, the majority on the court ruled that the lower-court injunction barring him from the activity was violating his First Amendment rights.Why is this decision more important that either the gay rights or the affirmative action decisions? Because courts preserving the right of workers, gays, blacks and any other protester to tell others their grievances and organize democratically is the core of democracy. And if corporations had the right to block access to their employees' email, that would essentially shut down democracy in much of our society and most definitely in the workplaces where people spend 40-80 hours per week. I don't like judicial review, as I note often. But I sometimes joke that my view on judicial review is like the Cheshire Cat-- nothing much remains but the grin of the first amendment. But in a democracy, that's all that's needed from the courts. And the California Supreme Court delivered on that in this decision. Posted by Nathan at June 30, 2003 07:39 PM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsI wonder how new federal anti-spam laws will affect this state level decision? Wonder if we'll need a judicial review to figure it out? Posted by: Kerim Friedman at June 30, 2003 09:17 PM Allow me to make a key distinction here. The rights of free speech,redress, and assembly are all in relation to the government. Corporations or family owned businesses are under no obligation to be run in a democratic manner. The Board of Directors does not have to consult with a workers soviet before making a decision. I would expect this to be overturned. Posted by: Michael Stach at July 1, 2003 01:12 AM Michael-- this was a state supreme court decision decided based on California's law of trespass. There's nothing to overturn. And, sorry, corporations are creatures of the government, given privileges and thus regulated by them. So free speech is very much an issue. This court decision did not even touch on federal labor law, which upholds the right of workers to communicate grievances and to act collectively within the workplace. So, in fact, the board of directors does by federal law have to consult with the workers "soviet"/union before making decisions. It's the law. Posted by: Nathan at July 1, 2003 07:17 AM With a name like Kourosh Hamidi I'd expect him to be gitmo'd for his trouble, i.e., accused of terrorism then held incommunicado as an "illegal enemy combatant" at Guantanamo Bay or perhaps a stateside military brig if he's lucky. Posted by: Barry Freed at July 2, 2003 01:49 AM Greetings: Thanks! Posted by: Erik at August 13, 2003 10:28 AM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|