Abstract
This commentary proceeds as follows. First, it is argued from both ethical and legal perspectives through an analysis of Court precedents that Etzioni’s has improperly developed a too narrow First Amendment interpretation and conclusion that Apple should comply with the FBI’s demand to provide the FBI with a key to open iPhones. That is, broad First Amendment considerations and not solely narrow First Amendment “compelled speech” or only Fourth Amendment privacy issues are offered and analyzed from both ethical and legal perspectives. A key point here is that broad First Amendment considerations protect, with exceptions, political and ethical discretion space for “Press” organizations to exercise, or not, ethical responsibilities, including rights to publish or not publish information and opinions, rather than compliance with government orders to publish or not publish. Further, Court cases are discussed from both legal and ethical perspectives where the Courts have established that social media organizations such as Facebook and Twitter do and should have broad First Amendment protection of free expression and peaceful assembly as traditional media such as newspapers have. It is suggested that Apple can and should be considered a social media organization. In addition, special First Amendment protection and limitations concerning national security are analyzed. Second, it is suggested that Etzioni’s point that Apple protected its clients soley for “business profitability” reasons is also a too narrow interpretation since there are more complex, mixed, and combined ethical and political-economic reasons for protecting clients and First Amendment protections. Third, the philosopher Paul Ricoeur’s ethics process responsibility framework concerning relationships between ethics and law and the need for an ethics responsibility rather than a compliance approach, which is similar to Brandeis’ legal ethics approach, is compared with and offered as an alternative to Etzioni’s compliance based “Liberal communitarian” approach. It is suggested that the difference between the Rocoeur and Etzioni approaches is similar to the difference between compliance and ethics responsibility process programs in organizations.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Associated Press. (2016). News media sue FBI for details on iPhone hack. The Boston Globe, September 17: 6.
Ball, J. (2013). NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders after US official handed over contacts. The Guardian. October 24.
Bellia, P. (2012). WikiLeaks and the institutional framework for national security disclosures. Yale Law Journal, 121(1448), 12–59.
Bercovici, J. (2014). Is Apple finally getting over its allergy to social media? Forbes. September 9.
Bickel, A. M. (1975). Morality of consent. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Buckley, W. H. (1962). The committee and its critics. New York: Putnam.
Chafee, Z. (1920). Free speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe.
Cole, D. (2012). The first amendment borders: The place of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project in First Amendment doctrine. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 147, 151.
Donner, F. J. (1967). The unamericans. New York: Ballantine.
Gellman, B. & Miller, G. (2013). Black budget summary details US spy network’s successes, failures, and objectives. The Washington Post, August 29
Gellman, B., Tate, J., & Soltani, A. (2014). In NSA-intercepted data, those not targeted far outnumber the foreigners who are. The Washington Post, July 5.
Greenwald, G. (2014). No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US Surveillance State. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Harding, L. (2014). The Snowden files: The inside story of the world’s most wanted man. New York: Vintage.
Kapko, M. (2015). Inside Apple’s odd, yet effective, social media strategy. CIO.com. Sept. 2
Lyon, D. (2014). Surveillance, snowden, and big data: Capacities, consequences, critique. Big Data & Society, 4, 1–14.
Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. New York: Routledge.
Moshirnia, A. V. (2013). Valuing speech and open source intelligence in the face of judicial deference. National Security Journal, 4(385), 387.
Nielsen, R.P. (1996). The politics of ethics. Ruffin Series in Business Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nielsen, R. P. (2010). High-leverage finance capitalism, the economic crisis, structurally related ethics issues, and potential reforms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(2), 299–330.
O’Reilly, K. (1983). Hoover and the unamericans. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Papandrea, M. R. (2014). Leaker traitor whistleblower spy: National security leaks and the first Amendment. Boston University Law Review, 94(2), 449–544.
Paulson, H. (2010). On the brink: Inside the race to stop the collapse of the global financial system. New York: Business Plus.
Pierce, A. M. (2015). Tweeting for terrorism: First Amendment implications using proterrorist tweets to convict under the material support statute. William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 24, 251–276.
Posner, R. A. (2009). A failure of capitalism: The crisis of ’08 and the descent into depression. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Prideaux, S. (2002). From organisatioal theory to the new communitarianism of Amitai Etzioni. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 27, 1.
Ricoeur, P. (1991). From text to action. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Sagar, R. (2013). Secrets and leaks: The dilemma of state secrecy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Titlow, J. P. (2014). Apple is warming up to social media. Fast Company. December 9.
Tracy, A. (2016). Here’s why Apple says hacking iPhones violates free speech. Forbes, February 26.
Tsukayama, H. (2016). “We asked a First Amendment lawyer if Apple’s ‘code is speech’ argument holds water”. Washington Post, February 26.
Urofsky, M. I. (2009). Louis D. Brandeis: A life. New York: Pantheon Books.
Whitfield, S. J. (1996). The culture of the cold war. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Zinn, H. (1980). A people’s history of the USA. New York: Harper Collins.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nielsen, R.P. “Ethical and Legal First Amendment Implications of FBI v. Apple: A Commentary on Etzioni’s ‘Apple: Good Business, Poor Citizen?’”. J Bus Ethics 151, 17–28 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3437-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3437-2