The Imaginary "Right of Privacy"

[DGS49]

It is no secret to anyone interested enough to read the Constitution that there is no "Right of Privacy" in the Constitution or in any amendment. It is a made-up right, which is the basis for, among other things, voiding thousands of anti-sodomy laws, the "right" to have an abortion, and the "right" to marry someone of the same gender.

So here is the question: If the Right of Privacy actually exists, can any legislature prohibit:

Consenting adults who are blood relatives (brother-sister) from getting married?
Polygamy?
Bestiality that does not physically harm the beast?
Manufacture and personal use of "controlled substances"?
Smoking marijuana?
Gambling among friends?

 

[candycorn]

The right to privacy need not be codified by the Constitution; as a practical matter it exists in natural law. Otherwise, you’d be unable to prevent me from legally putting your credit card numbers, social security numbers, health records on the Jumbotron at Times Square.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, I find it really interesting that people will sacrifice a lot of their privacy, just so that they can have the latest goodies on their phones.

If you willingly give your information to a company, you have lost your right to privacy, because the company will more than likely use that for advertising and bug you with targeted ads.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is no secret to anyone interested enough to read the Constitution that there is no "Right of Privacy" in the Constitution or in any amendment. It is a made-up right, which is the basis for, among other things, voiding thousands of anti-sodomy laws, the "right" to have an abortion, and the "right" to marry someone of the same gender.

So here is the question: If the Right of Privacy actually exists, can any legislature prohibit:

Consenting adults who are blood relatives (brother-sister) from getting married?
Polygamy?
Bestiality that does not physically harm the beast?
Manufacture and personal use of "controlled substances"?
Smoking marijuana?
Gambling among friends?

Wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

That it was the original intent of the Framers to recognize a right to privacy is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – the right to privacy is plainly codified in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments, placing limits and restrictions on government authority when government seeks to interfere in citizens’ private lives and the conduct of citizens’ private matters.

Government has the authority to limit, restrict, or prohibit certain activities such as the use of narcotics because like all rights the right to privacy is neither absolute nor unlimited; the right to privacy is not license to do anything one wishes – what private activities government may or may not regulate or prohibit is expressed in privacy rights case law.

The ignorance of Constitutional law exhibited in the OP is truly troubling, that so many Americans can indeed be this breathtakingly ignorant of the Constitution, its case law, and the fundamentals of American jurisprudence.

 

[Davey T]

The right to privacy need not be codified by the Constitution; as a practical matter it exists in natural law. Otherwise, you’d be unable to prevent me from legally putting your credit card numbers, social security numbers, health records on the Jumbotron at Times Square.

No, that is theft.

 

[Lysistrata]

Yes. There is a right to privacy. Look up the word "penumbra"? Do you really want government operatives looking over your shoulder at the the polling place? In your doctor's office? In your bank? Your bedroom? The concept of liberty is utterly meaningless without a natural right to privacy. Why do you think that there is a curtain to be drawn when you go to vote, or you are directed to a desk with privacy wings on it when you fill out your ballot?

When I vote in northern Virginia, I am checked in and given a ballot inside of manila folder. I am directed to take it to a standing desk with privacy shields. After I complete filling out my ballot, I place it back in the folder, and then go to the line at the machine where I place my ballot, all unseen by other eyes. Do you want something different, with government operatives watching everything we Americans do?

 

[candycorn]

The right to privacy need not be codified by the Constitution; as a practical matter it exists in natural law. Otherwise, you’d be unable to prevent me from legally putting your credit card numbers, social security numbers, health records on the Jumbotron at Times Square.

No, that is theft.

Really? How. You still have your credit card numbers, social security numbers, and health records…. Nobody stole them from you.

And I, the broadcaster, only put the information out there.

Now, what someone does with it…that may be theft.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The right to privacy need not be codified by the Constitution; as a practical matter it exists in natural law. Otherwise, you’d be unable to prevent me from legally putting your credit card numbers, social security numbers, health records on the Jumbotron at Times Square.

To do any of these things ^^^ will aid and abet someone who might harm another. The person who posted such private numbers does so with an intent, and any theft or other tort will be both a civil and criminal crime.

One other thought, peeping Tom laws generally make it a crime to view and/or photograph or film a person without his or her consent. Peeping Tom statutes differ from state to state, but they usually require:

1. That the victim did not realize he or she was being viewed;
2. That the victim was fully or partially naked, and
3. That the viewing took place at a place where the victim had a reasonable

 

[candycorn]

You know, I find it really interesting that people will sacrifice a lot of their privacy, just so that they can have the latest goodies on their phones.

If you willingly give your information to a company, you have lost your right to privacy, because the company will more than likely use that for advertising and bug you with targeted ads.

Ok but I think we need to be mindful (and I am in NO WAY saying that you are not) that while so many have just sacrificed their privacy to be able to take a picture of their ham sandwich; their actions do not speak for the whole of society. While some do not value their privacy since they are popular, since they are well connected, since they are secure; some people find it a must to maintain their privacy.

For example, you can be fired in many states for no reason at all. You have no protection. How many homosexuals are closeted to their employers where the boss would be aghast that a gay person is working with their son or daughter? How many recreational drug users are there? How many HIV positive folks hold down jobs in factories where they could possibly be injured?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There’s a canard conservatives attempt to propagate that because a word or phrase isn’t in the Constitution it’s ‘not in the Constitution’ – nothing could be further from the truth, of course.

For example, nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense’ – but in fact there is an individual right to possess a firearm and there is a right to self-defense pursuant to Constitutional case law.

Needless to say, we don’t hear conservatives whining about ‘individual’ and ‘self-defense’ not being in the Second Amendment.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[JLW]

Oddly, enough the right of privacy was found in the Constitution and elaborated upon in Roe v. Wade. Justice Blackmon found a right to privacy in what he called the "penumbra of rights" under the Constitution, if memory serves me correctly. For instance, the right against unlawful search and seizures or the right against self-incrimination imply a privacy right.

Ironically, those that cheer the end of Roe v. Wade don't realize they are also cheering on the demise of the case that found a right to privacy in the Constitution. Once that case is overruled, its progeny and privacy cases that relied on Roe may all be in jeopardy.

Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it.

 

[candycorn]

The right to privacy need not be codified by the Constitution; as a practical matter it exists in natural law. Otherwise, you’d be unable to prevent me from legally putting your credit card numbers, social security numbers, health records on the Jumbotron at Times Square.

To do any of these things ^^^ will aid and abet someone who might harm another. The person who posted such private numbers does so with an intent, and any theft or other tort will be both a civil and criminal crime.

One other thought, peeping Tom laws generally make it a crime to view and/or photograph or film a person without his or her consent. Peeping Tom statutes differ from state to state, but they usually require:

1. That the victim did not realize he or she was being viewed;
2. That the victim was fully or partially naked, and
3. That the viewing took place at a place where the victim had a reasonable

Believe me, I agree with you.

If the injured party has no expectation of privacy though…I’m not sure how you can prosecute the person who simply brought it to light.

PS: What about health records? What about if I know you rented porn and publicized that and you’re a teacher, coach, or Boy Scout Troop leader?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The right to privacy need not be codified by the Constitution; as a practical matter it exists in natural law. Otherwise, you’d be unable to prevent me from legally putting your credit card numbers, social security numbers, health records on the Jumbotron at Times Square.

To do any of these things ^^^ will aid and abet someone who might harm another. The person who posted such private numbers does so with an intent, and any theft or other tort will be both a civil and criminal crime.

One other thought, peeping Tom laws generally make it a crime to view and/or photograph or film a person without his or her consent. Peeping Tom statutes differ from state to state, but they usually require:

1. That the victim did not realize he or she was being viewed;
2. That the victim was fully or partially naked, and
3. That the viewing took place at a place where the victim had a reasonable

Believe me, I agree with you.

If the injured party has no expectation of privacy though…I’m not sure how you can prosecute the person who simply brought it to light.

PS: What about health records? What about if I know you rented porn and publicized that and you’re a teacher, coach, or Boy Scout Troop leader?

I would think there needs to be a harm. Otherwise the victim can be sued for defamation. The peeper may not win, but as the man said, in the US you can even sue a ham sandwich.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You know, I find it really interesting that people will sacrifice a lot of their privacy, just so that they can have the latest goodies on their phones.

If you willingly give your information to a company, you have lost your right to privacy, because the company will more than likely use that for advertising and bug you with targeted ads.

The right to privacy concerns only the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private organizations.

If a private person gives his personal information to a private company – such as a wireless provider – no ‘right’ to privacy was ‘lost’ because such a ‘right’ never existed to begin with.

Now, should government seek to obtain that private information from your wireless provider pursuant to criminal prosecution, then the right to privacy becomes an issue because your liberty is now in jeopardy.

 

[candycorn]

The right to privacy need not be codified by the Constitution; as a practical matter it exists in natural law. Otherwise, you’d be unable to prevent me from legally putting your credit card numbers, social security numbers, health records on the Jumbotron at Times Square.

To do any of these things ^^^ will aid and abet someone who might harm another. The person who posted such private numbers does so with an intent, and any theft or other tort will be both a civil and criminal crime.

One other thought, peeping Tom laws generally make it a crime to view and/or photograph or film a person without his or her consent. Peeping Tom statutes differ from state to state, but they usually require:

1. That the victim did not realize he or she was being viewed;
2. That the victim was fully or partially naked, and
3. That the viewing took place at a place where the victim had a reasonable

Believe me, I agree with you.

If the injured party has no expectation of privacy though…I’m not sure how you can prosecute the person who simply brought it to light.

PS: What about health records? What about if I know you rented porn and publicized that and you’re a teacher, coach, or Boy Scout Troop leader?

I would think there needs to be a harm. Otherwise the victim can be sued for defamation. The peeper may not win, but as the man said, in the US you can even sue a ham sandwich.

Okay but if you rented a porno and you lose your job as a camp counselor or teacher or coach…you can’t expect to win a suit for defamatory exposure if the exposure is truthful; can you? When Hillary and Podesta’s e-mails were made public by Trump’s buddies….they couldn’t sue anyone because the “injured parties” actually created and transmitted those messages.

Can you imagine the field day that Verizon or AT&T would have with your text messages if they could just sell them to whomever was willing to pay for them totally free of criminal or civil reprisal? Imagine your boss being able to call the doctor and get your medical records—he did pay in part for your insurance so he should have access; right? Will HIPAA be found to be unconstitutional?

The unasked question is this…do you want to live in America or do you want to live in Conservistan where your information is not considered private?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oddly, enough the right of privacy was found in the Constitution and elaborated upon in Roe v. Wade. Justice Blackmon found a right to privacy in what he called the "penumbra of rights" under the Constitution, if memory serves me correctly. For instance, the right against unlawful search and seizures or the right against self-incrimination imply a privacy right.

Ironically, those that cheer the end of Roe v. Wade don't realize they are also cheering on the demise of the case that found a right to privacy in the Constitution. Once that case is overruled, its progeny and privacy cases that relied on Roe may all be in jeopardy.

Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it.

Exactly.

And the Third Amendment prohibiting the quartering of soldiers in private dwellings likewise documents the intent of the Framers to recognize the right to privacy.

Soldiers are entities of the state and extensions of government; the quartering of soldiers in private dwellings was a clear violation of the sanctity of the home and the inherent privacy of the home, an attempt by the state to intimidate citizens and interfere with private matters which occur in the home.

Roe and its progeny represent the right to privacy with regard to prohibiting the state from interfering with personal, private decisions – such as whether to have a child or not; acknowledging the fact that the state has neither the authority nor interest in doing so.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The right to privacy need not be codified by the Constitution; as a practical matter it exists in natural law. Otherwise, you’d be unable to prevent me from legally putting your credit card numbers, social security numbers, health records on the Jumbotron at Times Square.

To do any of these things ^^^ will aid and abet someone who might harm another. The person who posted such private numbers does so with an intent, and any theft or other tort will be both a civil and criminal crime.

One other thought, peeping Tom laws generally make it a crime to view and/or photograph or film a person without his or her consent. Peeping Tom statutes differ from state to state, but they usually require:

1. That the victim did not realize he or she was being viewed;
2. That the victim was fully or partially naked, and
3. That the viewing took place at a place where the victim had a reasonable

Believe me, I agree with you.

If the injured party has no expectation of privacy though…I’m not sure how you can prosecute the person who simply brought it to light.

PS: What about health records? What about if I know you rented porn and publicized that and you’re a teacher, coach, or Boy Scout Troop leader?

I would think there needs to be a harm. Otherwise the victim can be sued for defamation. The peeper may not win, but as the man said, in the US you can even sue a ham sandwich.

Okay but if you rented a porno and you lose your job as a camp counselor or teacher or coach…you can’t expect to win a suit for defamatory exposure if the exposure is truthful; can you? When Hillary and Podesta’s e-mails were made public by Trump’s buddies….they couldn’t sue anyone because the “injured parties” actually created and transmitted those messages.

Can you imagine the field day that Verizon or AT&T would have with your text messages if they could just sell them to whomever was willing to pay for them totally free of criminal or civil reprisal? Imagine your boss being able to call the doctor and get your medical records—he did pay in part for your insurance so he should have access; right? Will HIPAA be found to be unconstitutional?

The unasked question is this…do you want to live in America or do you want to live in Conservistan where your information is not considered private?

I guess that's why the next choice for a justice of the Supreme Court is so important. There is no doubt the nominee will support the most conservative decision on privacy, but written to protect corporations such as AT&T and Verizon.

 

[candycorn]

The right to privacy need not be codified by the Constitution; as a practical matter it exists in natural law. Otherwise, you’d be unable to prevent me from legally putting your credit card numbers, social security numbers, health records on the Jumbotron at Times Square.

To do any of these things ^^^ will aid and abet someone who might harm another. The person who posted such private numbers does so with an intent, and any theft or other tort will be both a civil and criminal crime.

One other thought, peeping Tom laws generally make it a crime to view and/or photograph or film a person without his or her consent. Peeping Tom statutes differ from state to state, but they usually require:

1. That the victim did not realize he or she was being viewed;
2. That the victim was fully or partially naked, and
3. That the viewing took place at a place where the victim had a reasonable

Believe me, I agree with you.

If the injured party has no expectation of privacy though…I’m not sure how you can prosecute the person who simply brought it to light.

PS: What about health records? What about if I know you rented porn and publicized that and you’re a teacher, coach, or Boy Scout Troop leader?

I would think there needs to be a harm. Otherwise the victim can be sued for defamation. The peeper may not win, but as the man said, in the US you can even sue a ham sandwich.

Okay but if you rented a porno and you lose your job as a camp counselor or teacher or coach…you can’t expect to win a suit for defamatory exposure if the exposure is truthful; can you? When Hillary and Podesta’s e-mails were made public by Trump’s buddies….they couldn’t sue anyone because the “injured parties” actually created and transmitted those messages.

Can you imagine the field day that Verizon or AT&T would have with your text messages if they could just sell them to whomever was willing to pay for them totally free of criminal or civil reprisal? Imagine your boss being able to call the doctor and get your medical records—he did pay in part for your insurance so he should have access; right? Will HIPAA be found to be unconstitutional?

The unasked question is this…do you want to live in America or do you want to live in Conservistan where your information is not considered private?

I guess that's why the next choice for a justice of the Supreme Court is so important. There is no doubt the nominee will support the most conservative decision on privacy, but written to protect corporations such as AT&T and Verizon.

Maybe. I think the court moderates itself to a large degree.

 

[Wry Catcher]

To do any of these things ^^^ will aid and abet someone who might harm another. The person who posted such private numbers does so with an intent, and any theft or other tort will be both a civil and criminal crime.

One other thought, peeping Tom laws generally make it a crime to view and/or photograph or film a person without his or her consent. Peeping Tom statutes differ from state to state, but they usually require:

1. That the victim did not realize he or she was being viewed;
2. That the victim was fully or partially naked, and
3. That the viewing took place at a place where the victim had a reasonable

Believe me, I agree with you.

If the injured party has no expectation of privacy though…I’m not sure how you can prosecute the person who simply brought it to light.

PS: What about health records? What about if I know you rented porn and publicized that and you’re a teacher, coach, or Boy Scout Troop leader?

I would think there needs to be a harm. Otherwise the victim can be sued for defamation. The peeper may not win, but as the man said, in the US you can even sue a ham sandwich.

Okay but if you rented a porno and you lose your job as a camp counselor or teacher or coach…you can’t expect to win a suit for defamatory exposure if the exposure is truthful; can you? When Hillary and Podesta’s e-mails were made public by Trump’s buddies….they couldn’t sue anyone because the “injured parties” actually created and transmitted those messages.

Can you imagine the field day that Verizon or AT&T would have with your text messages if they could just sell them to whomever was willing to pay for them totally free of criminal or civil reprisal? Imagine your boss being able to call the doctor and get your medical records—he did pay in part for your insurance so he should have access; right? Will HIPAA be found to be unconstitutional?

The unasked question is this…do you want to live in America or do you want to live in Conservistan where your information is not considered private?

I guess that's why the next choice for a justice of the Supreme Court is so important. There is no doubt the nominee will support the most conservative decision on privacy, but written to protect corporations such as AT&T and Verizon.

Maybe. I think the court moderates itself to a large degree.

It should, but the most conservative justices today are putting their ideology before common sense.

Consider the Supreme Court as a jury, and anyone who has served on a jury knows they are admonished to listen carefully to both sides of the witnesses, and use common sense to decide who to believe.

 

[candycorn]

Believe me, I agree with you.

If the injured party has no expectation of privacy though…I’m not sure how you can prosecute the person who simply brought it to light.

PS: What about health records? What about if I know you rented porn and publicized that and you’re a teacher, coach, or Boy Scout Troop leader?

I would think there needs to be a harm. Otherwise the victim can be sued for defamation. The peeper may not win, but as the man said, in the US you can even sue a ham sandwich.

Okay but if you rented a porno and you lose your job as a camp counselor or teacher or coach…you can’t expect to win a suit for defamatory exposure if the exposure is truthful; can you? When Hillary and Podesta’s e-mails were made public by Trump’s buddies….they couldn’t sue anyone because the “injured parties” actually created and transmitted those messages.

Can you imagine the field day that Verizon or AT&T would have with your text messages if they could just sell them to whomever was willing to pay for them totally free of criminal or civil reprisal? Imagine your boss being able to call the doctor and get your medical records—he did pay in part for your insurance so he should have access; right? Will HIPAA be found to be unconstitutional?

The unasked question is this…do you want to live in America or do you want to live in Conservistan where your information is not considered private?

I guess that's why the next choice for a justice of the Supreme Court is so important. There is no doubt the nominee will support the most conservative decision on privacy, but written to protect corporations such as AT&T and Verizon.

Maybe. I think the court moderates itself to a large degree.

It should, but the most conservative justices today are putting their ideology before common sense.

Consider the Supreme Court as a jury, and anyone who has served on a jury knows they are admonished to listen carefully to both sides of the witnesses, and use common sense to decide who to believe.

Well, a few years ago, they ratified Obamacare; they said Hobby Lobby (remember the supposed "win" for the craft store???) still had to comply with the ADA but not on IUDs...

There are ebbs and flows. The essential issue isn't the landmark decisions that everyone notices...you're right; it's the laws that allow fleeing suspects to be shot in the back and the lessening of the burden the State has to come into your house, your car, your self and see what you've got. Probable cause isn't as cut and dried as it was once. The slow chipping is more damaging than the landmark rulings.