4 ms·
There isn't a similar existence of privacy rights.
by SamReidHughes 7y ago
There isn't a similar existence of privacy rights.
- ceejayoz 7y agoSCOTUS begs to differ, in Griswold v. Connecticut. So do various state laws.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoA case about access to contraception has nothing to do with free speech at all, nor is it even the same kind of "privacy." They're two different concepts, with the same word.
- ceejayoz 7y agoGriswold v. Connecticut established that the Constitution has some inherent rights to privacy. I cite it as you claim those rights don’t exist.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoThe 4th amendment established inherent rights to privacy!
- kube-system 7y agoThe 4th amendment restricts the ability of the government to infringe on your privacy. It does not restrict telecom companies in any way whatsoever.
- ceejayoz 7y agoThen why are you saying: > There isn't a similar existence of privacy rights. upthread?!
- SamReidHughes 7y agoIt's actually the seizure clause. The government can't seize your duck without a warrant, and that means if somebody's speech about you weighs as much as a duck, they've seized a duck's weight in information about you (measuring as if it's written on constitution-grade parchment), which violates your right to privacy as implied by the 4th amendment.
- kube-system 7y agoIt's a pretty big stretch to say that location and financial data is protected by a right to marital privacy.
- ceejayoz 7y agoIt would be odd to think marital privacy the only right to privacy the Constitution establishes.
- kube-system 7y agoThe constitution can't be used in this case to support a right to privacy. The argument for privacy here is that Maine's law doesn't infringe on the 1st amendment.