2 March 2011
Dahlia Lithwick has a column in Slate in which she discusses the latest of Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinions and how he is really a funny guy. Frankly, Ms. Lithwick has been spending too much time reading court opinions if she thinks this stuff is funny. Yes, there is a tinge of wry humor in the opinion, but this is not the stuff of great yucks. John Roberts is no Lenny Bruce. But the opinion is somewhat interesting in that Roberts gets his basic linguistic facts right and shows a rather sophisticated view on how words develop semantically.
At issue in FCC v. AT&T is a claim by AT&T that the Federal Communications Commission should not release information about the company pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request because release of the information would violate the corporation’s personal privacy. The company claimed that the law defines corporations as persons, and therefore it has a right to personal privacy. The relevant law does not specifically define the adjective personal. The court ruled unanimously 8–0 that AT&T did not have personal privacy rights. (Justice Kagan did not participate in the deliberation, presumably because in her former role as solicitor-general she had represented the FCC in the litigation.)
In the opinion, Roberts chooses some arch examples to illustrate his point:
Adjectives typically reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns, but not always. Sometimes they acquire distinct meanings of their own. The noun “crab” refers variously to a crustacean and a type of apple, while the related adjective “crabbed” can refer to handwriting that is “difficult to read,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 527 (2002); “corny” can mean “using familiar and stereotyped formulas believed to appeal to the unsophisticated,” id., at 509, which has little to do with “corn,” id., at 507 ("the seeds of any of the cereal grasses used for food"); and while “crank” is “a part of an axis bent at right angles,” “cranky” can mean “given to fretful fussiness,” id., at 530.
And he later continues:
Certainly, if the chief executive officer of a corporation approached the chief financial officer and said, “I have something personal to tell you,” we would not assume the CEO was about to discuss company business. Responding to a request for information, an individual might say,“that’s personal.” A company spokesman, when asked for information about the company, would not. In fact, we often use the word “personal” to mean precisely the opposite of business-related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company’s view.
Roberts concludes with what is the only truly, albeit mildly, amusing remark in the opinion:
The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law 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.
Addition: Mark Liberman has a more detailed analysis over at Language Log.
