|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 13:59:14 GMT -5
*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. Again, true. Again, my point was to demonstrate that the search and seisure stuff relates to the government, and is not an absolute, and again, it isn't really relevent since she (presumeably) told him about the miscarriage/abortion in the first place. Yes, its illegal for your employer to go through your house and poke through your stuff, but if you invite them in, and they find something you wish they hadn't, thats very different.
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 14, 2011 14:01:47 GMT -5
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. Again, true. Again, my point was to demonstrate that the search and seisure stuff relates to the government, and is not an absolute, and again, it isn't really relevent since she (presumeably) told him about the miscarriage/abortion in the first place. Yes, its illegal for your employer to go through your house and poke through your stuff, but if you invite them in, and they find something you wish they hadn't, thats very different. If they found something you wish they hadn't, that's one thing. If they posted that information publicly, that's a totally different thing.
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Jun 14, 2011 14:05:12 GMT -5
Keep in mind, LHM, she never told him she had an abortion. She was pregnant, and then she wasn't anymore. He's the one who made the assumption that she had an abortion and decided to make it public.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 14:10:32 GMT -5
Again, true. Again, my point was to demonstrate that the search and seisure stuff relates to the government, and is not an absolute, and again, it isn't really relevent since she (presumeably) told him about the miscarriage/abortion in the first place. Yes, its illegal for your employer to go through your house and poke through your stuff, but if you invite them in, and they find something you wish they hadn't, thats very different. If they found something you wish they hadn't, that's one thing. If they posted that information publicly, that's a totally different thing. Here we are at the crux of the issue, again... If you allow them to have the information, and there is no expectation of privacy... they can do what they like with the information. Don't believe me? Have a look at a bad employees reference letter sometime, where a former employer can and will refer to that persons negative qualities. Fail a drug test at work? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want that information broadcast, but guess what? And thats just with employers. Anyone else can say what they like about a person. You know... gossip? I really don't see how this billboard is any different to the guy telling a hundred people, who then told ten people, who then told ten people, that she'd had an abortion. Same effect, same outcome, merely different method. And again, the media, every single day, publish facts about people they may not generally want known. Again, for example, you think this Weiner guy wants people knowing he put a photo of his dick on Twitter? I'm guessing not. But if every paper in the country, and most international ones can tell complete strangers about US politician's scandalous behaviour, why can't a private citizen do the same about another private citizen? Yes, again, agree it was low, mean, underhanded and unnecessary. I'm not defending what he actually did. I will, however, defend his right to do it, and point out that I don't think he broke any law. Of course, if it goes to court, I'll be very interested to hear the specifics of the ruling, either way.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 14, 2011 14:11:46 GMT -5
It's still not broadcast in a very public manner. You choose to discuss personal matters within a small group of people, it's an unspoken understanding amongst those people that these matters are personal and are meant to go no further. There's a difference between choosing to disclose personal information within a group of any size, and someone else putting it up on a billboard--literally--for the world to see. If you can't see how that's an invasion of privacy, then I feel sorry for you. Cait said all I needed to when I got back from swimming.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 14:12:14 GMT -5
Keep in mind, LHM, she never told him she had an abortion. She was pregnant, and then she wasn't anymore. He's the one who made the assumption that she had an abortion and decided to make it public. How did he find out she was no longer pregnant?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 14:13:54 GMT -5
It's still not broadcast in a very public manner. You choose to discuss personal matters within a small group of people, it's an unspoken understanding amongst those people that these matters are personal and are meant to go no further. There's a difference between choosing to disclose personal information within a group of any size, and someone else putting it up on a billboard--literally--for the world to see. If you can't see how that's an invasion of privacy, then I feel sorry for you. Cait said all I needed to when I got back from swimming. Unspoken uinderstandings are great and all, but I don't think they stand up in courts of law.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 14, 2011 14:13:55 GMT -5
Keep in mind, LHM, she never told him she had an abortion. She was pregnant, and then she wasn't anymore. He's the one who made the assumption that she had an abortion and decided to make it public. How did he find out she was no longer pregnant? By stalking her as was mentioned before?
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 14, 2011 14:21:11 GMT -5
If they found something you wish they hadn't, that's one thing. If they posted that information publicly, that's a totally different thing. Here we are at the crux of the issue, again... If you allow them to have the information, and there is no expectation of privacy... they can do what they like with the information. Don't believe me? Have a look at a bad employees reference letter sometime, where a former employer can and will refer to that persons negative qualities. Fail a drug test at work? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want that information broadcast, but guess what? And thats just with employers. Anyone else can say what they like about a person. You know... gossip? I really don't see how this billboard is any different to the guy telling a hundred people, who then told ten people, who then told ten people, that she'd had an abortion. Same effect, same outcome, merely different method. And again, the media, every single day, publish facts about people they may not generally want known. Again, for example, you think this Weiner guy wants people knowing he put a photo of his dick on Twitter? I'm guessing not. But if every paper in the country, and most international ones can tell complete strangers about US politician's scandalous behaviour, why can't a private citizen do the same about another private citizen? Yes, again, agree it was low, mean, underhanded and unnecessary. I'm not defending what he actually did. I will, however, defend his right to do it, and point out that I don't think he broke any law. Of course, if it goes to court, I'll be very interested to hear the specifics of the ruling, either way. 1. An employee's actions are not a medical condition. If an employee sleeps on the job, then yeah, it's embarrassing, but the information is true and it's relevant to the conversation at hand. If the employee had a miscarriage, it's not the employer's job to tell the future workplace. 2. A gossip doesn't go out and tell a thousand people at once, nor do they print that information somewhere anyone can read it. 3. As I said before, Weiner is a public figure. He has different expectations of privacy under the law. He cannot sue for libel unless it is proven that it the information was false and published with deliberate malice. Since it was his dick, he can't sue.
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Jun 14, 2011 14:22:08 GMT -5
Yeah. Some of the tweets where he was watching her pregnancy progress are pretty terrifying, frankly.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 14, 2011 14:26:33 GMT -5
*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. If the desk was owned by the government, then they could still go through it. For example, lockers in a public school.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 14:28:32 GMT -5
1. An employee's actions are not a medical condition. If an employee sleeps on the job, then yeah, it's embarrassing, but the information is true and it's relevant to the conversation at hand. If the employee had a miscarriage, it's not the employer's job to tell the future workplace. Why do you persist with this idea that medical issues are somehow different to anything else one might discuss about another person? You can comment on someone else's medical condition all you like if you have information about it. The only people who can't are medical professionals for whom there is a legal requirement not to do so. Further... if you want to tell me you have never discussed another person's medical condition with a third party without the first person's consent... well... I don't want to HAVE to call you a liar, so please don't say that. Again, other than method... what's the difference? Also amused that the younger generation doesn't think gossip ever gets printed out. We used to have these things called "letters"...[/quote] Right... and since she DIDN'T carry the pregnancy to term...? Note; I already agreed that if she had a spontaneous miscarriage and he said she had an abortion, I think that would be a strong case for libel. However, if she did have an abortion, and he said she had an abortion, there is no libel case. But I'm not really talking about whether this is a libel issue or not. I'm talking about people's right to freely say things. Whether the person they are saying things about wants them to or not.
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 14, 2011 15:39:41 GMT -5
1. An employee's actions are not a medical condition. If an employee sleeps on the job, then yeah, it's embarrassing, but the information is true and it's relevant to the conversation at hand. If the employee had a miscarriage, it's not the employer's job to tell the future workplace. Why do you persist with this idea that medical issues are somehow different to anything else one might discuss about another person? You can comment on someone else's medical condition all you like if you have information about it. The only people who can't are medical professionals for whom there is a legal requirement not to do so. Further... if you want to tell me you have never discussed another person's medical condition with a third party without the first person's consent... well... I don't want to HAVE to call you a liar, so please don't say that. Again, other than method... what's the difference? Also amused that the younger generation doesn't think gossip ever gets printed out. We used to have these things called "letters"... Right... and since she DIDN'T carry the pregnancy to term...? Note; I already agreed that if she had a spontaneous miscarriage and he said she had an abortion, I think that would be a strong case for libel. However, if she did have an abortion, and he said she had an abortion, there is no libel case. But I'm not really talking about whether this is a libel issue or not. I'm talking about people's right to freely say things. Whether the person they are saying things about wants them to or not.[/quote] WE'RE GOING IN CIRCLES AND I AM FRUSTRATED. Anyone else want to take this?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 14, 2011 16:49:54 GMT -5
LHM, I'm starting to wonder if you actually understand what free speech is.
Here's a hint: It means you can say anything about the government and the government can't, say, put you in jail for expressing your beliefs against the government.
Free speech only applies between the person and the government. Beyond that is misinterpretation.
It's been repeatedly pointed out to that Americans have the right to privacy from both the government and other Americans. It's been cited. It's been proven. Bold and clear, and I mean literally bold.
Any further discussion is irrelevant. You're wrong, end of story.
Now, can we get back to the topic?
EDIT: To clarify...
Person A has the right to spread her personal information. Person B does not, even if Person A told Person B her information. If the family asks Person B if he will talk about Person A's information after Person A said "not to talk about it", then he should reply "She asked me not to talk about it. Sorry." And leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Radiation on Jun 14, 2011 18:52:32 GMT -5
Ok... I know a bit about privacy laws and medical disclosure... I'm not an expert so I won't pretend to be one.
My mom was an interpreter for the deaf for many, many years. She was a freelance interpreter. She was called when she was needed, whether it was at the hospital, jail or court.
She was bound BY LAW, that anything that was communicated between parties was not to be disclosed to other, outside parties.
For example, say an interpreter is called to attend a doctor's appointment for a husband and a wife. The wife has been having some problems breathing, tests were done and now the follow up is being discussed. The wife asks her husband to stay outside the room, so he does.
The interpreter, the wife and the doctor go into the office and discuss the test results and they find out that she has cancer, she decides not to disclose it to her husband just yet. Let's say that the interpreter leaves the room for a quick break or something and the husband approaches and asks about his wife's condition. The only thing the interpreter can do is to say "I can't disclose that information" Why? Because she can get into major trouble. She didn't have permission from the wife that she could tell the wife's husband about the cancer. The interpreter is bound by HIPPA laws and would get into trouble not only with the parties involved, but also by the law. She disclosed private information.
Same thing goes for court trials, I remember asking my mom what cases she was working with and she would tell me that she couldn't discuss it. Same thing for visiting deaf people in jail.
Now, how does this all fit in with this situation? The woman in question was, at one point pregnant. She had a miscarriage from what I am reading here. This medical event was discussed by both her and her doctor, she more than likely decided not to discuss it with her then boyfriend. Her boyfriend was not privy to that medical information because she didn't discuss it with him. The boyfriend assumed that it was an abortion and then decides to publicly announce it to the world, er town. He is a third, outside party that violated her privacy and attempted to smear her name. If he was privy to her medical information, he violated those privacy laws as well. Either way, what he did was clearly out of malice and falls within the Tort and libel (written to defame) laws of that jurisdiction.
|
|