|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 13, 2011 0:47:05 GMT -5
The right to free speech does not trump the right to privacy. Your rights end where mine begin. To which "right" to privacy are you refering?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 13, 2011 0:47:33 GMT -5
If he had been in TN when the new law was enacted he could be sued under it. Which new law? Sorry if I missed it mentioned elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by chad sexington on Jun 13, 2011 1:01:41 GMT -5
He reminds me of CWC
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jun 13, 2011 1:26:38 GMT -5
Beware of anyone who advertises himself as a "Nice Guy". RUN AWAY. RUN AS FAR AS YOU CAN AS FAST AS YOU CAN. THIS. A thousand times, THIS.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jun 13, 2011 1:28:47 GMT -5
The right to free speech does not trump the right to privacy. Your rights end where mine begin. To which "right" to privacy are you refering? Holy crap, you're an idiot. In American law, the right to privacy is a given, and NOBODY has the right to post another person's personal information -- especially personal MEDICAL information -- in public without that person's permission. What this guy did is a clear violation of his ex's rights.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 13, 2011 1:40:01 GMT -5
To which "right" to privacy are you refering? Holy crap, you're an idiot. And yet I don't tell people to destroy their companion animals. Go figure. So, rather than a mouthful of abuse, how about you tell me where the "right to privacy" is enshrined in American law? I don't think thats an unreasonable ask.
|
|
|
Post by DarkfireTaimatsu on Jun 13, 2011 1:51:54 GMT -5
Beware of anyone who advertises himself as a "Nice Guy". RUN AWAY. RUN AS FAR AS YOU CAN AS FAST AS YOU CAN. THIS. A thousand times, THIS. *sad* No wonder I finish last.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jun 13, 2011 2:03:58 GMT -5
@lhm -- First, third, fourth, and ninth amendments to the Constitution, and portions of the fourteenth. Also, uh, dude, Lawrence v. Texas. law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.htmlAmericans do, indeed, have a RIGHT TO PRIVACY, and what this asshole did clearly violated this woman's rights. In addition, since she had a miscarriage, he has committed slander/libel (whichever one is text-based).
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 13, 2011 2:09:07 GMT -5
The right to free speech does not trump the right to privacy. Your rights end where mine begin. To which "right" to privacy are you refering? And prove that 1+1=2, right?
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 13, 2011 2:19:55 GMT -5
If he had been in TN when the new law was enacted he could be sued under it. Which new law? Sorry if I missed it mentioned elsewhere? Sorry it's only a couple topics down.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 13, 2011 2:42:29 GMT -5
@lhm -- First, third, fourth, and ninth amendments to the Constitution, and portions of the fourteenth. I'm not seeing it. Looking it up I could see a case for libel, possibly.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 13, 2011 2:46:25 GMT -5
Lawrence v texas is about GOVERNMENT intrusion into a private dwelling. Nothing about private citizens making statements about other private citizens.
I'm going to go out on a limb here... it is my understanding that the only people one can legally demand a respect of privacy from are people with confidentiality privelidges, such as medical staff, priests and such like.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 13, 2011 2:47:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jun 13, 2011 3:07:04 GMT -5
Lawrence v texas is about GOVERNMENT intrusion into a private dwelling. Nothing about private citizens making statements about other private citizens. I'm going to go out on a limb here... it is my understanding that the only people one can legally demand a respect of privacy from are people with confidentiality privelidges, such as medical staff, priests and such like. And it's my understanding that even J. Random Citizen isn't allowed to post Jane Smith's personal information PUBLICLY without permission.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 13, 2011 3:46:17 GMT -5
Lawrence v texas is about GOVERNMENT intrusion into a private dwelling. Nothing about private citizens making statements about other private citizens. I'm going to go out on a limb here... it is my understanding that the only people one can legally demand a respect of privacy from are people with confidentiality privelidges, such as medical staff, priests and such like. And it's my understanding that even J. Random Citizen isn't allowed to post Jane Smith's personal information PUBLICLY without permission. With all due respect, I believe you are incorrect. You can't even charge someone with libel or slander if what they are saying about you is true. If what you were saying were correct, every over-the-fence gossip merchant, tabloid journalist and blogger would be guilty of a crime. I'm pretty sure, and think about this please, if you tell something to anyone other than someone you can legally expect privacy from (e.g. doctor, lawyer, priest) then you have no come back if that person then tells someone else.
|
|