|
Post by Damen on Jun 14, 2011 12:45:51 GMT -5
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. Sooo... where and who is deciding what is and isn't publicly sharable information? How is "she had an abortion!" different to, say, "he posted a picture of his penis on the internet!" Well, kiddo, you answered your own question. "She had an abortion!" = Someone screaming about private matter of another person. "He posted a picture of his penis on the internet" = Something he (the owner of the cock) did of his own free will.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 12:54:32 GMT -5
Sooo... where and who is deciding what is and isn't publicly sharable information? How is "she had an abortion!" different to, say, "he posted a picture of his penis on the internet!" Well, kiddo, you answered your own question. "She had an abortion!" = Someone screaming about private matter of another person. "He posted a picture of his penis on the internet" = Something he (the owner of the cock) did of his own free will. I'm sorry... are abortions not generally a matter of free will?
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 14, 2011 12:59:06 GMT -5
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) The GOVERNMENT can't just break into your home and search your stuff. Nothing about private citizens. Fuck sake back atcha. 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. All it says is that you can't break in unless you have a warrant, with probable cause for that warrant. It does not say, "Only the government needs a warrant, the rest of you can do your breaking and entering as much as you want."
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 14, 2011 13:03:25 GMT -5
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. Sooo... where and who is deciding what is and isn't publicly sharable information? How is "she had an abortion!" different to, say, "he posted a picture of his penis on the internet!" He is a public figure. She is a private citizen. There is a difference.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Jun 14, 2011 13:05:29 GMT -5
Also, a guy who posts his penis on the internet has already broadcast his personal junk before someone else can broadcast that he did it.
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 14, 2011 13:06:01 GMT -5
Well, kiddo, you answered your own question. "She had an abortion!" = Someone screaming about private matter of another person. "He posted a picture of his penis on the internet" = Something he (the owner of the cock) did of his own free will. I'm sorry... are abortions not generally a matter of free will? First off, this was a miscarriage. Second off, she didn't put it up on the billboard, someone else did. That is an invasion of privacy.
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on Jun 14, 2011 13:07:08 GMT -5
Well, kiddo, you answered your own question. "She had an abortion!" = Someone screaming about private matter of another person. "He posted a picture of his penis on the internet" = Something he (the owner of the cock) did of his own free will. I'm sorry... are abortions not generally a matter of free will? wow, way to totally fail comprehension. The issue is not the abortion but disclosure of the abortion. The penis example was to point out that it's Ok to make your own normally-private information available to the public because it's your personal information and you are doing it because you want too It's not OK to make somebody else's private information (like a medical procedure) public without their approval because it's their information and they need to consent to it being public. And to answer your earlier question, it would be OK to tell your family since they have a vested interest in the matter, it might be OK to tell your close friends, it would not be ok to blog about it without asking her first, since that would be making it available to random people who have no stake in the issue and there's really no practical reason for them to know and it's mostly her private information.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 13:19:27 GMT -5
The GOVERNMENT can't just break into your home and search your stuff. Nothing about private citizens. Fuck sake back atcha. 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. All it says is that you can't break in unless you have a warrant, with probable cause for that warrant. It does not say, "Only the government needs a warrant, the rest of you can do your breaking and entering as much as you want." So... while the government most certainly can't enter your home, workplace, or other place with an expectation of reasonable privacy... you think your employer, or parents, can't go through your draws without a warrant? This also rather avoids the point that this wasn't some stranger taking her personal information and making it public, this is some guy she (presumeably) told all about it, so the search and siesure stuff isn't really relevent.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 14, 2011 13:29:16 GMT -5
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. All it says is that you can't break in unless you have a warrant, with probable cause for that warrant. It does not say, "Only the government needs a warrant, the rest of you can do your breaking and entering as much as you want." So... while the government most certainly can't enter your home, workplace, or other place with an expectation of reasonable privacy... you think your employer, or parents, can't go through your draws without a warrant? This also rather avoids the point that this wasn't some stranger taking her personal information and making it public, this is some guy she (presumeably) told all about it, so the search and siesure stuff isn't really relevent. With parents, it's actually their property so this is a stupid argument. With employers, yes, they need permission. I have worked for companies that want background checks, they can't just go through my private information, I need to give them permission to do it first. Because we actually do have privacy rights, it's one of those implicit rights versus one of our many explicit rights. Privacy is enough of a concern in enough amendments that courts consistently rule we have a right to privacy.
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 14, 2011 13:32:31 GMT -5
And if the parents are going through their adult children's things, then yes, they could be sued for invasion of privacy if the person is so inclined.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jun 14, 2011 13:33:10 GMT -5
People thinking that they have the right to do this sort of shit is half the problem with the U.S.
Seriously, when as a country are you guys going to grow up and start acting like responsible adults? With great power comes great responsibility, and freedom is the greatest power you have. Abuse that power too much and don't be surprised if one day you find it forcibly removed.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 13:46:43 GMT -5
One definite piece of information is this: don't discuss the matter of abortion without your partner's consent. If she says DON'T MENTION I HAD AN ABORTION, you keep your devil's-advocating motherfucking mouth shut. ETA: And if she hasn't said whether or not you can discuss it one way or another, assume that means no, you may not discuss it. Mmkay? So... girlfriend says "don't discuss the abortion". Mum says "so how is girlfriends pregnancy coming along?" And I say...? Anyway... while I agree with you MORALLY more or less about when it is appropriate to discuss something like this, LEGALLY it is another kettle of fish. I've already agreed that MORALLY the guy is a reprehensible piece of shit. Legally, however, and as far as his right to freely say whatever he pleases are concerned...
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 13:48:46 GMT -5
So... while the government most certainly can't enter your home, workplace, or other place with an expectation of reasonable privacy... you think your employer, or parents, can't go through your draws without a warrant? This also rather avoids the point that this wasn't some stranger taking her personal information and making it public, this is some guy she (presumeably) told all about it, so the search and siesure stuff isn't really relevent. With parents, it's actually their property so this is a stupid argument. With employers, yes, they need permission. I have worked for companies that want background checks, they can't just go through my private information, I need to give them permission to do it first. Because we actually do have privacy rights, it's one of those implicit rights versus one of our many explicit rights. Privacy is enough of a concern in enough amendments that courts consistently rule we have a right to privacy. *facepalm* Talking about your current employer looking through your desk drawers, not a potential employer asking you for a background check. Any way, still not really relevent since she presumably told him about the miscarriage of her own free will, rather than someone searching out and publishing her information without her consent.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 13:49:59 GMT -5
And if the parents are going through their adult children's things, then yes, they could be sued for invasion of privacy if the person is so inclined. Certainly. However, my point was to demonstrate that the constitutional ammendment about search and seisure is NOT an absolute, that it refers only to government intrusion into individual privacy, it is not an across the board privacy principle.
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 14, 2011 13:52:21 GMT -5
With parents, it's actually their property so this is a stupid argument. With employers, yes, they need permission. I have worked for companies that want background checks, they can't just go through my private information, I need to give them permission to do it first. Because we actually do have privacy rights, it's one of those implicit rights versus one of our many explicit rights. Privacy is enough of a concern in enough amendments that courts consistently rule we have a right to privacy. *facepalm* Talking about your current employer looking through your desk drawers, not a potential employer asking you for a background check. Any way, still not really relevent since she presumably told him about the miscarriage of her own free will, rather than someone searching out and publishing her information without her consent. Since the desk is (presumably) the property of the employer, and since it is a semi-public place, yes, they could. However, they could not go through, say, your purse, nor could they go to your house and poke through your personal desk.
|
|