7 ms·

California Constitution. Article 1, Section 1: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defendin

California Constitution. Article 1, Section 1: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SECTION%201.&article=I https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... (not a country of course, but somewhere privacy is a constitutional right. question then is how a state can protect this right)

boon 9y ago
To be fair, the "pursuit" of those things are considered natural rights. Not the things themselves. Not saying that a right to privacy doesn't exist. I think it exists because a combination of other rights DO exist. But rights can't obligate others, and if your information ends up in the public sphere, I don't believe you have a natural right to have it taken down. If you contracted with a third party, and as part of that exchange, your info was supposed to be secured, you have a right to secure damages within the scope of that contract.
- anoother 9y ago
  "...pursuing and obtaining..."
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    Yep, that's what the legal language says. It's obviously not workable, though; you can see that the goal listed before "privacy" which all Californians have the legal right to obtain is "happiness". This would appear to imply that you have the same legal rights against someone who violates your privacy as against someone who makes you unhappy. http://www.theonion.com/article/proposed-bill-would-bring-4000-troops-back-to-life-2329 http://www.theonion.com/article/proposed-bill-would-bring-40... > The bill, H.R. 702, stipulates that immediately upon its passage into law, the 4,000 brave soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq come marching triumphantly over the horizon, directly into the arms of their loved ones, looking the same as they did on the day they left home.
  - wernercd 9y ago
    So if you pursue but don't obtain happiness, due you get to sue the State of California for infringing on your inalienable and guaranteed state rights?
r00fus 9y ago
Does this mean Telcos/payfone can be sued in CA for being in violation of the constitution?
- Animats 9y ago
  No. Federal preemption.
  - lightedman 9y ago
    That does not preclude anyone from filing regarding violations of the state constitution. There's that whole right to address ones grievances that gets in the way.
    - Animats 9y ago
      Unfortunately, it does.[1] See the Supreme Court decision in Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. Hatch. [2] FCC-regulated entities are not subject to state consumer protection laws. [1] https://www.wileyrein.com/practices-federal-preemption.html https://www.wileyrein.com/practices-federal-preemption.html [2] http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/11-1545-11-1547-bs.pdf http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/11-...
      - lightedman 9y ago
        I didn't say anything about consumer protection laws - I explicitly stated violations of the state constitution.
whathaschanged 9y ago
California isn't a country, no matter how much their government wishes they were.

boon 9y ago

To be fair, the "pursuit" of those things are considered natural rights. Not the things themselves. Not saying that a right to privacy doesn't exist. I think it exists because a combination of other rights DO exist. But rights can't obligate others, and if your information ends up in the public sphere, I don't believe you have a natural right to have it taken down. If you contracted with a third party, and as part of that exchange, your info was supposed to be secured, you have a right to secure damages within the scope of that contract.

anoother 9y ago
"...pursuing and obtaining..."
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  Yep, that's what the legal language says. It's obviously not workable, though; you can see that the goal listed before "privacy" which all Californians have the legal right to obtain is "happiness". This would appear to imply that you have the same legal rights against someone who violates your privacy as against someone who makes you unhappy. http://www.theonion.com/article/proposed-bill-would-bring-4000-troops-back-to-life-2329 http://www.theonion.com/article/proposed-bill-would-bring-40... > The bill, H.R. 702, stipulates that immediately upon its passage into law, the 4,000 brave soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq come marching triumphantly over the horizon, directly into the arms of their loved ones, looking the same as they did on the day they left home.
- wernercd 9y ago
  So if you pursue but don't obtain happiness, due you get to sue the State of California for infringing on your inalienable and guaranteed state rights?

r00fus 9y ago

Does this mean Telcos/payfone can be sued in CA for being in violation of the constitution?

Animats 9y ago
No. Federal preemption.
- lightedman 9y ago
  That does not preclude anyone from filing regarding violations of the state constitution. There's that whole right to address ones grievances that gets in the way.
  - Animats 9y ago
    Unfortunately, it does.[1] See the Supreme Court decision in Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. Hatch. [2] FCC-regulated entities are not subject to state consumer protection laws. [1] https://www.wileyrein.com/practices-federal-preemption.html https://www.wileyrein.com/practices-federal-preemption.html [2] http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/11-1545-11-1547-bs.pdf http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/11-...
    - lightedman 9y ago
      I didn't say anything about consumer protection laws - I explicitly stated violations of the state constitution.

whathaschanged 9y ago

California isn't a country, no matter how much their government wishes they were.