|
Post by Vene on Jun 13, 2011 11:15:22 GMT -5
Yes, yes, I get that you guys have de facto rights.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jun 13, 2011 11:16:53 GMT -5
He reminds me of CWC ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/shocked.png) Eee gads, I hope you're not referring to me!? ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) lol. Since you've changed it, though, wouldn't you be QWC? ...now you sound like a home-shopping network. And Chad, I totally beat you to it-- first page, baby. *pimp walk*
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Jun 13, 2011 11:44:15 GMT -5
Aren't de-facto rights a little different from explicitly stated constitutional rights?
|
|
|
Post by Bezron on Jun 13, 2011 12:31:12 GMT -5
And now we have an Aussie blathering about US rights. That is amusing. We have somebody from a country with barely any rights talking about rights in a country where they are fucking everywhere. We hand out federal rights like used condoms. We don't have rights? I have the best right of all...the right to not have every other life form on the continent try to kill me. you Aussies can't say that, now can you?
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 13, 2011 12:49:37 GMT -5
He is publicly announcing private information, which is a violation of her right to privacy. He's not "discussing" it - he's bloody broadcasting it. And know what? He's not discussing his part in it, either. He's not saying, "I prevented her from getting an abortion," or, "she was 18 when we started dating," or any information relevant to him and his part in her pregnancy. All he's saying is, "She killed our baby." And if that is his perception of events? Who has the right to stop him saying precisely that? (from all I've read, frankly, I think he said what was calculated to cause the most distress possible out of petty revenge. But that is my assumption) Now, you said "He is publicly announcing private information". It wasn't "private information". She told him. At that point, it ceased being private. She trusted him to keep that information confidential maybe, but there was no legal reason compelling him to do so. And this is where you stop getting my point. There is a legal reason compelling him to do so - the information is personal and, if revealed, could cause embarrassment. Something that is spelled out in the tort of false light. EDIT: Hey, guys, I'm pissed, too, but try to keep it from turning into a flame war, please? Keep the "you Aussies" thing down, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on Jun 13, 2011 12:52:15 GMT -5
I have the best right of all...the right to not have every other life form on the continent try to kill me. you Aussies can't say that, now can you? I don't know, there might be a few dozen blades of peaceful grass in Australia, and and one or two sheep.......
|
|
|
Post by TWoozl on Jun 13, 2011 13:26:09 GMT -5
I won't necessarily flame LHM for his nationality (Though his personal lack of reading comprehension does reflect poorly on his fellow Aussies). I will, however, flame him for completely and totally ignoring tort law; The fundie fool in question, intentionally released information in a manner intended to inflame an otherwise private medical issue, and whether or not he has a sexual relationship with the woman in question, it is not legally cricket to go releasing that information. It isn't even a matter of which one law he trampled in the process, LHM, unless you want to be a raging pedant arguing American law as an Australian, with Americans. It's a matter of picking out just how many he did, or how many legal avenues he's sat awaiting a kick in the pants on.
You've managed to ignore in this whole matter, what his intent was in releasing the information. He was not posting regarding a medical matter requiring discussion despite how stupidly you've put things, in claiming that he has a right to discuss the matter. He absolutely does have the privilege (NOT right) to talk about it. Privately. With the involved party only. The way the law is currently set up, it's entirely her right to choose not to even discuss the matter, or to discuss it at her leisure with a reasonable expectation of good faith. Her choosing to talk to one individual, or the matter slipping inadvertently to that one individual? It really doesn't suddenly entitle him to just blow the lid wide on a sensitive topic. There's a funny thing called reasonable expectation of confidentiality. Putting up an entire thinly veiled piece of billboard-sized tort aimed right at her with the intention of shaming her in front of an entire town? I am not sure what kind of "discussion" you have at home, or expectation of good faith, but it bloody well doesn't work that way.
I'm sorry, but the niceness ends here. Go read the bloody URLs that have already been scattered across your path of blind stupidity, and grok the issue at hand before you carry on blithering like an idiot in the name of some ridiculous rights-cause about "his right to discuss the matter". When did it become rational to discuss a matter by smearing it up on a billboard? Would it be kosher to put up a billboard saying "such and such is GAY" or "such and such has a small penis"? Ever?
Had the man, say, gone to talk to his psychiatrist about his girl having an abortion, he would have been within his own personal rights. Actual rights. Barely. Going to talk to say, Jane the teacher down the way about his girl's medical issue? Not really kosher, gray area, but still his privilege, conscious of consequences in breaking good faith on a sensitive issue. Depends on intent, that funny word you've ignored so far defending a right the fellow doesn't have in the first place. Please learn the difference between privileges and rights at your earliest convenience. Talking it rationally over with Jane, in a respectful fashion? Probably cool. Smearing his ex in that chat with Jane? Crossing over into tort country and a breach of trust. "Discussing it" with the entire town on a billboard, while barely veiling her name and hanging it out in plain sight for everyone with two neurons to rub together to view? Not cool.
Grab a bit of context, and actually try to grok the issue, would you kindly? Not exactly the spot to be white-knighting for rights and/or some right of fatherhood nonsense. It isn't even in doubt that the man's committed a pretty egregious civil trespass. The only thing left is figuring out just how far into criminality he's trundled.
|
|
|
Post by QWcanary on Jun 13, 2011 13:29:58 GMT -5
Eee gads, I hope you're not referring to me!? ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) laugh out loud. Since you've changed it, though, wouldn't you be QWC? ...now you sound like a home-shopping network. And Chad, I totally beat you to it-- first page, baby. *pimp walk* LOL, I guess one knows they are a forum regular once they're getting picked on ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) I just hope I don't come off like the guy in question!
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 13, 2011 13:34:52 GMT -5
EDIT: Hey, guys, I'm pissed, too, but try to keep it from turning into a flame war, please? Keep the "you Aussies" thing down, thank you. Sorry, I just get annoyed when people outside of this country think they have half a clue of how it works when they clearly don't.
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 13, 2011 13:41:49 GMT -5
EDIT: Hey, guys, I'm pissed, too, but try to keep it from turning into a flame war, please? Keep the "you Aussies" thing down, thank you. Sorry, I just get annoyed when people outside of this country think they have half a clue of how it works when they clearly don't. Nah, I get it. It's just, this happened last time and the thread got locked. Trying to avoid that.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jun 13, 2011 14:34:59 GMT -5
Christ, LHM, you're a dick. HE REVEALED PERSONAL MEDICAL INFORMATION THAT HE HAD NO RIGHT TO DISCLOSE. Actually since he probably lied about it she can sue his ass for libel ;D
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 13, 2011 14:36:08 GMT -5
He did, she can, and she is.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jun 13, 2011 14:39:28 GMT -5
@lhm -- First, third, fourth, and ninth amendments to the Constitution, and portions of the fourteenth. I'm not seeing it. You're not seeing a right to privacy in the third and fourth Amendments? The ones that make sure people can't just break into your home and search it or force unwanted people to stay in your home? Goddammit, LHM... ![:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/sad.png)
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jun 13, 2011 14:40:29 GMT -5
He did, she can, and she is. Well then, best of luck to her.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jun 13, 2011 14:46:57 GMT -5
I already agreed its libel. But if you don't have an expectation of medical inconfidence, then you can't get upset when someone you tell personal medical information tells it to someone else. Especially if the information effects you directly. Of course it matters that its his child. ![](http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldst74H4ci1qe5i9to1_500.jpg) ![](http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld4xvjQYKc1qccbu9o1_500.gif) Anyone else want to take this? First of all, there was no child involved. Only a potential child. Secondly, since it was a bodily function she couldn't control--a miscarriage--he has no say in what happened. In fact, no one had a say in what happened because it was a fucking miscarriage. Third, let's say she did have an abortion. You still can't broadcast that type of private medical information that is generally regarded to be between a patient and their doctor. When I was a student justice in college I had to hear cases where students were accused of violating our code of conduct. Legally I couldn't go out and put up a billboard that proclaimed intimate details of what happened because those details were intertwined with their personal records. Even if some of the details affected me in some way, I couldn't legally do that.
|
|