Is it not a philosophically and practically facile question? Any answer has to be "it depends". It depends on the ethical and philosphical basis of the observer and commentator and the context which lead to there being a conflict between the rights of the individual and the rights of an organisation (in the widest sense of the word). Take for example the case of Clive Ponting, was he right to blow the whistle about the sinking of the Belgrano, or was he a traitor? Was HM Prison service right to forcefeed suffragettes on hunger strike given that they were possibly also infringing what we would now see as their human rights.

I think at base there is there are deeper philosophical questions here about the nature of rights, human rights etc? Do rights exist before they are passed into a statute book? Is there philosophically a right to education, a right to healthcare, freedom from fear or are these rights entirely philosophically, socially and historically contingent? No-one would have recognised the right to education in 5th century Athens or even in Britain in the mid 19th century (so did these rights exist). Could a case not be made that in order for rights to exist, "to be is to do" to plagarise Socrates, thus rights have to be practiced and practice is entirely conditional on where power lay and the contingent relationship (in the UK at least) between common good/maximum utility and the rights and responsibilities of the individual? Having said that though I do subscribe personally to the view of no platform for Fascism.

But that is entirely my point. Right is entirely contingent on the view point of the observer, "moral laws" even definitions of human rights are societally and historically contingent. There is no "right" in any absolute sense, merely sets of historically and societally defined positions which are subject to change over time. Rights are not something we have, they are conferred and the rights that we are given are dependent on where we are born and where we grow up. They are conferred by the legal/judicial systems under which we live and by our abilities to conceive of and assert them, they may respect or be conditioned by a morality but morality itself is socially, politically and historically contingent.

My own view on whether organisational rights should prevail at any time over individual rights is pragmatic and contingent on my subjective perception of each case when these rights come into conflict.