When is privacy just privacy?


7 comments posted
Many people believe the "if

Many people believe the "if it catches bad guys it is good, I do not have anything to worry about" cliché. They have no understanding how liberty and privacy are interchangeable.

The right to privacy is implied by way of the constitution granting the right of liberty and freedom, the government infringes on this right whenever it snoops at library cards etc. with proper warrant of suspicion.

OleBlue's picture
Posted by OleBlue on 13 September 2005 - 11:47am
Privacy is what you want in the bathroom

That's how most people think about privacy. The implications to loss of freedom elude most, and that's why "privacy" is not the most effective meme, imho.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 13 September 2005 - 12:07pm
The government can and has

The government can and has regulated freedoms in the past. We can see one clear example in illicit drug regulation. You can be arrested for growing and using drugs that never leave your home. So throwing around the term freedom does not help your argument in reguards to contraceptives or abortion.

The real problem is that, unlike drug use, equal protection under the law IS a constitutional protection ( 14th amendment ). Combine that with a 4th amendment right to be free from most goverment intrusion, 5th ammendment right not to self incriminate, and the 9th ammendment protection for unenumerated rights there is a strong case to be made for on demand abortion. One that leads from equal rights and goes directly to the heart of the matter.

How does a woman have equal right under the law if she is hostage to every assault or accident on her reproductive system? This is a burdon to freedom that men do not have to deal with. This burden is the direct cause of women earning less then men ( workforce pressure ) and other inequitys.

I do believe that at this moment, Roberts will be confirmed. Unless he looses it on the stand, there is not enough rope to hang him by. I do find it troubiliing though that his "constitutional right to privacy" does not appear to protect someone's freedom to choose contraceptives or abortion, although he consiteres Roe V Wade "setteled precident". Basicly he is one slick talker and he has given no indication what his true judicial feelings are by claiming, whenever convienient, that because the issue MIGHT cone before the court it's off limits.

Eric's picture
Posted by Eric (not verified) on 13 September 2005 - 1:06pm

I believe you mean Alberto Gonzalez, not Garcia.

pablo's picture
Posted by pablo (not verified) on 13 September 2005 - 1:29pm
Well said

Eric, I agree completely. Nicely put.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 13 September 2005 - 1:29pm
Excellent post. I can

Excellent post. I can understand why people--quite correctly--feel that the bundle of rights that is grouped under "privacy" aren't adequately captured by the word; they key, as you say, is to make people understand what's at stake.

Scott Lemieux's picture
Posted by Scott Lemieux (not verified) on 14 September 2005 - 3:48pm

Justice Louis Brandeis is your go-to guy here; he famously wrote that the right to life includes "the right to be let alone." That, his piece makes clear, includes freedom from all manner of actual or potential damages, threats and restrictions.

In a word: liberty. Now, where have I read that before? :-)

Lex's picture
Posted by Lex (not verified) on 15 September 2005 - 1:30pm