Why Not Immunity?

A hot topic is the FISA government surveillance bill debate. One issue is that of retroactive immunity for telecoms that complied with government surveillance demands. Now, I am not looking to debate here the merits or demerits of the surveillance in and of itself. What I want to focus on is specifically the issue of immunity.

The telecoms were faced with a demand from the government that ostensibly had the force of law. Meaning that they could face legal liability if they refused to comply with the demands. Now, some groups want to pursue civil litigation against the telecoms for providing information to the government. It seems to me that if you are compelled by law to do something, you should not be held liable for civil claims resulting from compliance with that obligation. To be held liable in civil court places one in a position of choosing between legal liability and civil liability. This hardly seems like a justifiable predicament to in which to put or hold accountable an otherwise law abiding entity.

This is not meant to justify any actions, but it is unreasonable to expect someone to be forced to choose between legal and civil liability through no fault of their own. If the government comes to you and makes a demand having the force of law, it would be unfair to be put in liability by virtue of complying with a demand that you have no legal option but to comply. If there is issue with the legitimacy of the demand then that issue shall be with the government attempting to make the demand. The respondent should not be obligated evaluate the legitimacy and liability of compliance as compliance should be taken as a given on the part of the respondent. Of course the respondent has the right to object and pursue legal action to eliminate the obligation to comply. However, that right should not be construed as an obligation whereby opting not to pursue that avenue incurs civil liability. In short, a demand from the government having force of law, whether actual or implied, should, by necessity, justice, and fairness, convey civil immunity with regard to compliance with the demand.

The problem here is that people lose sight of what is just simply because they are seeking any excuse for punative action on a corporation whether justified or not. Sure, by all means take issue with the surveillance and the government program and pursue any fitting legal course of action. But whether or not the demand by the government placed on the telecoms was legitimate, the issue should be with the government for making the demand not with the telecoms for complying. Complying with a government demand, even if that demand is found to be illegitament, should not confer liability of any illegitimacy on the respondent.