>That's legal? That's not a blatant free speech issue? Why oh why does absolutely everything have to boil down to "free speech"? Do you want to only have one

>That's legal? That's not a blatant free speech issue? Why oh why does absolutely everything have to boil down to "free speech"? Do you want to only have one human right? Free speech but no other rights? People have the right to a private life as well as the right to freedom of expression and a list of other rights (the right to life, the right to a fair trial etc. etc.) and often these rights conflict. In this case it's the right to a private life and the right to freedom of expression. Neither right trumps the other, having both is important for society to function well. And when the right balance between them is struck, actually having the right to a private life can protect the freedom of expression. As an example: If one thinks anything and everything they say is _likely_ to be published publicly or to an authority that might then be prejudiced against them then they're likely to self-censor. That's bad for free speech. But if one has the right to a private life and is thus in control of what they say then they're less likely to self-censor.