Is there really such a thing as a 'right to privacy?'

[BurtWorm]

:popcorn:

[wuushew]

1. Yes

n/t

[BurtWorm]

4. Say more.

Where does it come from? How is it manifested?

[wuushew]

9. Isn't the 4th amendment an indirect definition of privacy?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons

[BurtWorm]

12. But this is specifically a protection against the government's power to charge one as a criminal.

Right? It's not about an individual's right to keep what is called private from being made public by another (private) person.

[COLGATE4]

16. It's not directly about the government's ability to charge a person

as a criminal, although it usually arises in the context of evidence obtained for a criminal prosecution. The right to privacy found in the Constitution also encompasses your right to buy birth control, for example.

[BurtWorm]

21. But that's implied, some scholars say, in the Ninth Amendment, not the fourth.

Right?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This is a highly controversial amendment, as it doesn't (in fact logically can't) say anything about what those non-enumerated rights are or where they come from.

[MH1]

18. That's not what it says.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

it is unreasonable for any person to search another's property / effects and publish that information.

"the right ... to be secure" seems very broad to me.

[BurtWorm]

25. That is a reasonable way to read that. Thank you!

What I'm trying to understand is what the Rutgers students should be guilty of. I mean, what I'm really trying to understand is how they came to view a private act as something they were free to make public. My suspicion is that the right to privacy, which we of the Roe v. Wade generation grew up with, has become damaged somehow. In my opinion, this is something that has to be repaired, because a society in which people feel free to violate others' privacy seems to me about as barbarous as one in which people feel free to kill and rob from each other.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Currently. n/t

[SheilaT]

3. Not specifically in the Constitution.

But I believe that's what the Supreme Court referenced in Roe v. Wade.

And there may be certain state or local laws that at least impute a right to privacy.

[BurtWorm]

7. Does the Fourth Amendment imply it?

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

[slackmaster]

14. The Ninth Amendment covers it

:hi:

[SheilaT]

32. I can't remember which part

of the Constitution that particular Supreme Court pointed to. But the Fourth does make sense. I'm also thinking that one of the later ones was also pointed to, but can't remember and don't feel like doing the research to find out.

[BillStein]

33. that's the key

The US Constitution does not specifically mention privacy, but the USC grants powers to the govt., eg power to tax, pass laws, settle disputes etc.

Madison initially opposed the Bill of Rights (although he eventually wrote them) because he felt that enumerating some rights would imply that others were not protected. We have a right to privacy because nothing in the Constitution limits that right.

The state Constitutions, otoh, are limits on state power- hence many state constitutions have an explicit right to privacy.

The important thing is to remember the difference between state and federal powers.

[uncommon]

5. Of course not dummy.

Just ask Justice Scalia, one of the most powerful men in America.

[HereSince1628]

6. THe founders tried to get personal privacy of your person

and your papers (a comprehensive list in a pre-photographic, non-electronic age) worked into the Constitution.

P.A.T.R.I.O.T. actors have done their best to eliminate that.

[BurtWorm]

8. That is what the Fourth Amendment is about, right?

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

[Hangingon]

10. I will agree with you BertWorm

[HereSince1628]

11. Unfortunately, for pie-holes who want to argue, it didn't use the word privacy

it used the word 'secure.'

A person with reasonable comprehension of the English language and an understanding of the context (post-revolutionary) wouldn't have any difficulty understanding that if a person's person, home, paper, and effects were secure, they would in fact be private.

But the erosion of civil rights to make their jobs easier, is the task of the parsing pie-holes that serve this nation as police and prosecutors. All done under the guise of making us safer. And I do believe Franklin had a response to that stupidity as well.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. The word 'privacy' at that time tended to denote the 'privy'

or toilet. They would not have used the word privacy to mean security in personal matters unless they mean simply using the facility.

[HereSince1628]

36. I am sure that is considered by Justices Roberts, and Scalia

Not.

[slackmaster]

13. Yes

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. The Supreme Court has held that the right to privacy is implied.

It's called a "penumbral" right, but a specific "right to privacy" isn't stated in the Constitution. The implied right was a basis for the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut and cases following.

[COLGATE4]

17. Exacrly. That's why all these mouthbreathers who disagree

with Roe v Wade keep screaming "show me where it says that in the Constitution". A person's right to manage their private affairs free from government inspection or intrusion is identified as a penumbral right.

[COLGATE4]

19. Exacrly. That's why all these mouthbreathers who disagree

with Roe v Wade keep screaming "show me where it says that in the Constitution". A person's right to manage their private affairs free from government inspection or intrusion is identified as a penumbral right.

[COLGATE4]

20. Exactly. That's why all these mouthbreathers who disagree

with Roe v Wade keep screaming "show me where it says that in the Constitution". A person's right to manage their private affairs free from government inspection or intrusion is identified as a penumbral right.

[WolverineDG]

23. In the "penumbra" of the First Amendment nt

[ljm2002]

22. I hope so...

...it was one of the foundations of the Roe v Wade decision.

[Uncle Joe]

24. The Fourth and Ninth Amendments imply it but just from a logical standpoint if there were no

presumption of a right to privacy, CBS would never have been fined for showing Janet Jackson's boob during the Super Bowl halftime and everyone could walk around butt naked.

[BurtWorm]

26. But CBS wasn't fined for violating Janet Jackson's rights.

Were they? They were fined for violating some alleged right of John and Jane Superbowl Viewer to not have to see nipples on their TV.

[Uncle Joe]

27. That's correct but if there was no presumption of privacy and everything was open to the public

then John and Jane Superbowl Viewer would have no cause to damage from seeing alleged nipple and thus CBS would have committed no offense.

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter could have intercourse on Broadway in NYC and nothing could be done about it because you would have no right to privacy protecting you from seeing such an atrocity.

Laws of indecency are intricately tied to the presumed right of privacy.

[BurtWorm]

28. Please!

I'm eating lunch here!

;-)

[Uncle Joe]

29. I apologize, that was harsh, but I figured that if

I just left you with the Janet Jackson visual, you would be all for elminating privacy.;-)

[BurtWorm]

30. Touche!

:patriot:

[BillStein]

35. that's backwards

If ann and rush did it in their bedroom and I peaked through a window and took a picture, they could stop me from printing it because they have a presumption of privacy in the home.

If they screwed in Times Square, I could take a picture and circulate it freely, because there is no presumption of privacy in a public place.

The prsumption is for the actors, not the onlookers

[Uncle Joe]

37. It's also for the onlookers.

Laws of indecency are De Facto based on a separation of that which is public from that which is private.

You can masturbate at home but be arrested for doing it in public.

How can something be indecent if there is no presumption of privacy?

[WinkyDink]

31. According to the Supreme Court, and who am I to argue: yes.