|
Post by wmdkitty on Jun 9, 2011 22:09:29 GMT -5
Christ, LHM, you're a dick.
HE REVEALED PERSONAL MEDICAL INFORMATION THAT HE HAD NO RIGHT TO DISCLOSE.
|
|
|
Post by shiftyeyes on Jun 9, 2011 22:45:12 GMT -5
In what sense is the word right being used here? While we may say that in a state of nature or ideal world she has the right to keep her medical information private. But I can't imagine medical information that she told to someone who was not actually a doctor or worked for a hospital/clinic is protected from disclosure by that person by US law. Bear in mind that the right to privacy that protect abortion isn't the right to be secretive about personal information, but the right to not have the government interfere with major life decisions such as whether to have a family, whether to have sex (in a variety of ways), and learning or teaching any useful skill. Additionally, even if she had the right not to have the gov't disclose such information, her ex is not the gov't.
The only I can see her ex's actions being a violation of her rights is if the Courts determine that allowing people to reveal the abortions of others places an undue burden (as per Casey) on a woman's right to have an abortion. Even then it would be a tough sell since no other laws struck down by the Undue Burden test have involved someone else's fundamental right (both speech and the misnamed privacy rights are fundamental).
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Jun 9, 2011 22:46:33 GMT -5
Wow...what a first class douchebag this guy is...he needs a good beatdown...
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Jun 9, 2011 22:56:16 GMT -5
What about that group of pro-liars in (I think it was) Oklahoma who started making a list of women who had abortions to spread around? Was that OK? Because this is virtually the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Radiation on Jun 9, 2011 23:13:28 GMT -5
What about that group of pro-liars in (I think it was) Oklahoma who started making a list of women who had abortions to spread around? Was that OK? Because this is virtually the same thing. I agree with this... this man essentially has made himself known to the public and those that know him will also know who his ex is. She is no longer anonymous and now people will know that she had an abortion which is a highly contested political/social/religious hot button that there have been people killed over the topic.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 9, 2011 23:13:49 GMT -5
In what sense is the word right being used here? While we may say that in a state of nature or ideal world she has the right to keep her medical information private. But I can't imagine medical information that she told to someone who was not actually a doctor or worked for a hospital/clinic is protected from disclosure by that person by US law. Bear in mind that the right to privacy that protect abortion isn't the right to be secretive about personal information, but the right to not have the government interfere with major life decisions such as whether to have a family, whether to have sex (in a variety of ways), and learning or teaching any useful skill. Additionally, even if she had the right not to have the gov't disclose such information, her ex is not the gov't. The only I can see her ex's actions being a violation of her rights is if the Courts determine that allowing people to reveal the abortions of others places an undue burden (as per Casey) on a woman's right to have an abortion. Even then it would be a tough sell since no other laws struck down by the Undue Burden test have involved someone else's fundamental right (both speech and the misnamed privacy rights are fundamental). Who says she told him? She had a miscarriage. He assumed she had a voluntary abortion. Thus, billboard gets posted.
|
|
|
Post by shiftyeyes on Jun 11, 2011 2:01:18 GMT -5
If it's not true that she had an abortion, then she has a pretty good libel and defamation of character case on her hands and can take everything he's got (and given that he doesn't seem to have much, everything he ever will have).
I'd been under the impression that she had had an abortion and he was pissed about a breakup (and maybe the abortion too), so he used a true billboard for revenge.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 11, 2011 2:58:39 GMT -5
This guy is a colossal asshole.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 11, 2011 3:10:49 GMT -5
Imagine the equivalent of a female doing it for a male, um... getting a vasectomy.
"This would have been my pregnant picture if my boyfriend hadn't altered God's natural order!"
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 11, 2011 4:21:35 GMT -5
*Sigh* hooray for people understanding how "privacy" works. *rolls eyes*.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 11, 2011 5:02:02 GMT -5
*Sigh* hooray for people understanding how "privacy" works. *rolls eyes*. cool story, bro
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Jun 11, 2011 7:52:12 GMT -5
Partially addressed at lighthorseman.
The issue is as usual many faucetted. On one side we have the legality of privacy disclosure. I am certain the courts will rule on this. On the other side are our views on what is private and what must remain private. I will address the latter point. Keep in mind that I am not discussing possible legislation here.
Perhaps people recall that a newspaper in Uganda decided to publish the names of several gay (and allegedly gay) people. I urge the reader to consider how they'd answer the following questions with respect of a third party disclosing information about private persons. 1. Is being gay a private matter? 2. Is being gay a private matter that must remain private? 3. If things must remain private did the issue of the possible consequences if it didn't remain private influence your answer? 4. If consequences matter do you have a natural, non arbitrary way of deciding what private information would in your case and should in general be considered so essential that it must remain private? 5. There actually do exist 2 such natural, non arbitrary ways. One is to say that all private matter is protected and the other is to say that no private matter is (and again legislation can create, even if arbitrarily, specific restrictions on disclosure of private matter - that is not what I am discussing here). If you didn't come with any other natural way but these two, which one do you think a reasonable person should adhere to?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 11, 2011 7:54:48 GMT -5
What part of "Tasteless? Unnecessary? Mean? Sure. All of that." was unclear to you?It is if one keeps it private. However, once one makes a public statement about something that was, until that point, private, its a bit late to start demanding people respect privacy.
Of course not. Assuming, from 1. the gay person was "out". Of course, if someone is NOT out, and has made no public statements about one's sexuality, then it is wrong for others to make statements about it. But if one makes a statement to this group over here "I am gay", one rather loses the initiative to complain when that group over there starts talking about it. Nes pas?
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Jun 11, 2011 8:31:44 GMT -5
The part where where you decide that you should defend all privacy, no privacy or provide your own method of determining what should be kept private or not. I do not care if you consider it tasteless, unnecessary or mean. That is irrelevant. I also see that you did not try to go through the whole questionnaire.
What dismays me is that you automatically infer that someone is out in the first question and apply it in the second question. And then dare not answer the third question. Where in the whole thing is it ever implied that someone is out??? The whole issue of the original post and my addition is about disclosing something that another person has kept private.
You do know that the Uganda list contained not only people that admit being gay but also allegedly gay ones? And that people on the list got physically and emotionally assaulted?
To be honest my post was intended as an exercise not requiring answers. I apologize for not making that clear. But since you, lighthorseman, replied, I had address your reply as well.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 11, 2011 8:38:51 GMT -5
The part where where you decide that you should defend all privacy, no privacy or provide your own method of determining what should be kept private or not. I do not care if you consider it tasteless, unnecessary or mean. That is irrelevant. I also see that you did not try to go through the whole questionnaire. I didn't go through the whole thing, because at 3, you sdeemed to assume my answer to 2 would be something different to what it was. Um... I think I pretty specifically said "it is if one keeps it private" didn't i? If one is not out, then how can anyelse disclose it? The information would not be available. Harking back to the Koran burning discussion... I'm going to say that in such a case, the problem is with the people who think they have a right to assault people, rather than the people who discuss other people's sexuality. Just trying to contribute.
|
|