Journal of Business Ethics 151 (1):17-28 (2018)

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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10551-017-3437-2
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,784
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

From Text to Action.Paul Ricoeur - 1991 - Northwestern University Press.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Ethical Consequences of “Going Dark”.Richard A. Spinello - 2021 - Business Ethics: A European Review 30 (1):116-126.
Review of The Mueller Report. [REVIEW]Jooho Lee - 2020 - Journal of Business Ethics 163 (1):167-172.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Apple: Good Business, Poor Citizen?Amitai Etzioni - 2018 - Journal of Business Ethics 151 (1):1-11.
Corporate Governance: An Ethical Perspective.Surendra Arjoon - 2005 - Journal of Business Ethics 61 (4):343-352.
An Antitakeover Amendment for Stakeholders?Nancy L. Meade, Robert M. Brown & Dana J. Johnson - 1997 - Journal of Business Ethics 16 (15):1651-1659.


Added to PP index

Total views
11 ( #836,316 of 2,463,118 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,363 of 2,463,118 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes