Discussion in 'Judicial Interpretation' started by JBvM, Jul 9, 2018.
In this case, are they or aren't they?
Depends what they said it in regards to.
The thing about privacy - and the reason that the assertion of a "universal right to privacy" is so asinine - is that it's a very conditional thing, and usually dependent on other factors, or even on other rights.
If, for example, a person is in police custody and is talking to his lawyer, then he has an expectation of privacy because of his right of attorney-client privilege. They're put in a separate room with no one else in it, and he therefore has a reasonable expectation that there will not be listening devices or people lurking behind mirrored windows to eavesdrop or whatever.
On the other hand, if the person decides to tell his lawyer in the middle of the crowded police station lobby that he's guilty, he has no expectation of privacy due to attorney-client privilege or anything else, because he's in a public place.
Nevermind right to privacy. Right to control over your own fucking body is more like it. Things like this were so basic and assumed that the founders never called them out.
Separate names with a comma.