|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 13, 2011 4:43:05 GMT -5
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. Okay so if I riffle around in your garbage and get your credit card info then sell it that isn't an invasion of privacy? Or even better... I compile everything you've used in the last 6 months-- condoms, ketchup bottles, the like and then spread around the information about how many times you've had sex (or none at all) as well as whether you eat things like shark fin soup (which btw gets a lot of flak from the oceanic groups)... Knowing you've had shark fin soup I then confront you and ask you about it. You say yes but please not to tell anyone. But I tell people anyways. Has your privacy been violated? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 12, states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. " I will however note this isn't exactly a 'law' per se. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_RightsHowever something like this falls under 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. I'm sure you know where that comes from.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 13, 2011 4:59:43 GMT -5
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. Okay so if I riffle around in your garbage and get your credit card info then sell it that isn't an invasion of privacy? Or even better... I compile everything you've used in the last 6 months-- condoms, ketchup bottles, the like and then spread around the information about how many times you've had sex (or none at all) as well as whether you eat things like shark fin soup (which btw gets a lot of flak from the oceanic groups)... Knowing you've had shark fin soup I then confront you and ask you about it. You say yes but please not to tell anyone. But I tell people anyways. Has your privacy been violated? Absolutely that is a violation of privacy. And As I already said, its mean, wrong, unnecessary, and a whole bunch of other derogatory terms. Its not illegal though. Its also fairly common... going through people's garbage is what current affairs shows and tabloid papers do daily. Indeed. However, the UDoHR is worth less than the paper it is written on unless it is fully ratified, is it not? In fact, I'm not sure if its even intended as binding on signatories, or if its more of a non binding guide. What do you want me to say? I'm just telling you how it is. And flame if you must, I feel there is a difference between a stranger going through your garbage and someone intimately involved with your affairs relaying that information to others. This guy seems like a first order jerk from what we know of him here... but the fact remains, she DID get pregnant to him, presumeably in a consentual fashion. Like it or not, that does give him a stake in the matter. Of course I don't approve of the billboard thing... that's pure dickishness. However, to say that the father doesn't have the right to discuss what happened to his pregnant partnert/ former partner seems ridiculous to me.
|
|
|
Post by Runa on Jun 13, 2011 5:02:00 GMT -5
There's discuss and then there's PUBLICLY FUCKING BROADCAST IT!
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 13, 2011 5:10:11 GMT -5
There's discuss and then there's PUBLICLY FUCKING BROADCAST IT! I don't think the law makes such a distinction. Also, your sigline. Irony!
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Jun 13, 2011 5:24:05 GMT -5
And your first album can be "Devastated By A Relationship With A Gargoyle". Or else just "Relationship With A Gargoyle". I think I've seen that fanfic.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 13, 2011 5:33:25 GMT -5
He doesn't have a right to publicly announce it for everyone in the fucking world to see, LHM. He does. not. have. that. right.
Just like I wouldn't have the right to proclaim to the world you've had a vasectomy or have an itty bitty penis.
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 13, 2011 5:42:57 GMT -5
Hey, look, Roe v. Wade.The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion No, actually, I'll go one step further. Oh, look, privacy law.In the United States today, "invasion of privacy" is a commonly used cause of action in legal pleadings. Modern tort law includes four categories of invasion of privacy:[6] Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters. Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory. Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain some benefits. Since she did not actually have an abortion, she is being placed in a false light. Even if she had gotten an abortion, it would still be an invasion of privacy under public disclosure.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 13, 2011 6:51:53 GMT -5
He doesn't have a right to publicly announce it for everyone in the fucking world to see, LHM. He does. not. have. that. right. You can say it all you like, but have you anything to back it up? And yet... people say such things every single minute of the day. Stop thinking about the scale of the thing for a second, and tell me what has this guy done that is any different to the mean and horrible things that ex lovers have been saying about their exes since the invention of language?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 13, 2011 6:53:32 GMT -5
Hey, look, Roe v. Wade.The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion No, actually, I'll go one step further. Oh, look, privacy law.In the United States today, "invasion of privacy" is a commonly used cause of action in legal pleadings. Modern tort law includes four categories of invasion of privacy:[6] Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters. Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory. Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain some benefits. Since she did not actually have an abortion, she is being placed in a false light. Even if she had gotten an abortion, it would still be an invasion of privacy under public disclosure. Aain... it being his child, does he not, in fact, have a stake in the issue and therefore the right to discuss it as he sees fit? If she didn't actually have an abortion, I already agreed that I think she has grounds for a libel case.
|
|
|
Post by TWoozl on Jun 13, 2011 7:06:20 GMT -5
LHM, the relevant points were conveniently bold-texted already. His "vested interest" means nothing; He's disclosing private details regarding her, in contravention of laws and precedents already clearly on the books. If I may be so blunt? What he did was a douche-bag maneuver. It absolutely qualifies as gray-area legal, if not overtly illegal where tort law, the Declaration of Human Rights, and multiple precedents (Roe v. Wade, medical confidentiality cases) are concerned.
That aside? Let's be honest here. The man openly advocates partner murder on several forms of media, amongst other egregiously asocial outbursts. He has gone beyond his billboard and done similar on his personal webspace (If you had actually bothered to do some sort of background search on the matter-- oh wait, you didn't). He only changed the subtle, yet easily apparent stab at his ex after legal action was initiated.
Bottom line? I have to ask you bluntly and openly here, what you're really honestly attempting to play at. Do you really believe that every individual by being only part of a circle of knowledge has the right to disclose information that can negatively impact another human being as they see fit? Is what you're proposing moral, and do you have some vested interest in crusading on the behalf of an antisocial troglodyte? Do you have any intention whatsoever of actually reading the postings responding to your demands for supporting evidence, when they lay it plainly on the table? Or would you just care for a light shake of salt to go with your next bite of foot.
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 13, 2011 7:07:01 GMT -5
Hey, look, Roe v. Wade.The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion No, actually, I'll go one step further. Oh, look, privacy law.In the United States today, "invasion of privacy" is a commonly used cause of action in legal pleadings. Modern tort law includes four categories of invasion of privacy:[6] Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters. Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory. Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain some benefits. Since she did not actually have an abortion, she is being placed in a false light. Even if she had gotten an abortion, it would still be an invasion of privacy under public disclosure. Aain... it being his child, does he not, in fact, have a stake in the issue and therefore the right to discuss it as he sees fit? If she didn't actually have an abortion, I already agreed that I think she has grounds for a libel case. Excuse me, did you read a single word of what I wrote? It doesn't matter if it's his child. He's still committing libel. And even if it wasn't libel, it's still an invasion of privacy, due to the relevant laws I just posted.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 13, 2011 7:23:07 GMT -5
Aain... it being his child, does he not, in fact, have a stake in the issue and therefore the right to discuss it as he sees fit? If she didn't actually have an abortion, I already agreed that I think she has grounds for a libel case. Excuse me, did you read a single word of what I wrote? It doesn't matter if it's his child. He's still committing libel. And even if it wasn't libel, it's still an invasion of privacy, due to the relevant laws I just posted.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.
|
|
|
Post by TWoozl on Jun 13, 2011 7:28:01 GMT -5
Is the medical condition his? No? Then he has no business whatsoever sharing it. Confidentiality does not work that way; The onus of confidentiality is on the persons holding confidential information. Regardless. If she chose to release the information to the general public, that's her problem. She didn't. He did. Note those four words very carefully.
"To the general public".
IE: He breached medical confidentiality willfully. Would you care for another shake of salt?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 13, 2011 7:49:13 GMT -5
LHM, the relevant points were conveniently bold-texted already. His "vested interest" means nothing; He's disclosing private details regarding her, in contravention of laws and precedents already clearly on the books. If I may be so blunt? What he did was a douche-bag maneuver. It absolutely qualifies as gray-area legal, if not overtly illegal where tort law, the Declaration of Human Rights, and multiple precedents (Roe v. Wade, medical confidentiality cases) are concerned. Medical confidentiality cases are irrelevent, since the information wasn't given to the guy under medical inconfidence circumstances. Now... re: Roe v. Wade, do you know what the actual ruling in that case said? Because I don't think you'll find its actually relevent here. Re: the declaration of human rights... is the US a signatory? Is the UDoHR binding on signatories? Would you like me to acknowledge, again, that it was a dick move? Happily. It was a dick move. However, being a dick isn't illegal. I would also contend that any one of us here who has been through a difficu8lt break up has made comments in similar vein, although possibly not in so stupid a manner as they can be found by anyone with a search engine. Mostly? Yes. We see this every day. On TV, in friends gossip, even here in our very own forums. How many of the celebrity and political scandals we discuss right here do you think the people involved gave their permission for the information to be made public? We ALL have a vested interest. Its easy to defend someone's rights when they are popular and we agree with them. More difficult when it is a piece of human filth. Personally, I worry that one day I may be the person someone is trying to deprive of my rights, because I hold an unpopular stance on a subject. I hope that people like me will be as willing to defend my rights, even though my views are unpopular when that time comes. Excuse me? What do you think I havn't read? We've seen bits of the constitution cited, that dealt with housing soldiers in private citizens homes, and the UDoHR. Smurfette did cite a law that seems relevent, but where do you draw the line? Who decides what is an "acceptible" breach of privacy, and, again, has this dickhead done anything that is any worse than anything the paparazzi does, or that we do when gossiping with our friends every day?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 13, 2011 7:53:18 GMT -5
Is the medical condition his? No? Then he has no business whatsoever sharing it. Confidentiality does not work that way; The onus of confidentiality is on the persons holding confidential information. Regardless. If she chose to release the information to the general public, that's her problem. She didn't. He did. Note those four words very carefully. "To the general public". IE: He breached medical confidentiality willfully. Would you care for another shake of salt? Medical confidentiality only exists when there is an expectation of medical inconfidence. So... if this woman had an abortion or a miscarriage, and her DOCTOR went out and put up this billboard... sure... breach of medical confidentiality. No question. But her boyfriend? Since when are boyfriends considered medically privelidged? She released the information to him. Since there was no expectation of privacy, she may as well have put the information on the billboard herself. Whether you tell one person or a million, if you tell someone without a legal expectation of privacy, then its fair game.
|
|