4 ms·
Privacy is not a legal right in general, beyond some particilar subclasses like searches and seizures.
by Evbn 14y ago
Privacy is not a legal right in general, beyond some particilar subclasses like searches and seizures.
- charonn0 14y agoPerhaps it ought to be?
- MereInterest 14y agoNo, it's there, just not explicitly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
- Zigurd 14y agoThat's a general error, such as claiming there is no right to travel, or freedom of movement in general. You have the "sense" of rights backward. The reason internal passports would be unconstitutional in America would be that the restriction of freedom of movement is not a power delegated to the federal government. That's why in the BoR it has words to the effect "this is not an exhaustive list of your rights."
- RollAHardSix 14y agoI respectfully disagree. Although, this only refers to the government...well schools are government too lol...but you know what I'm getting at, I would think that whether it's the school or the government would yield no major differences in the outcome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012) ...Although if the device only tracks around the school and not 24-hour...that's another layer to be considered. Very complicated matter from a legal standpoint. As for my personal ethics, I'd tell my daughter to take it off.
- clavalle 14y agoWhy? Would you tell your daughter not to sit in her assigned seat when they take attendance?
- alayne 14y agoMany people believe that privacy is a fundamental human right. The UN lists it in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- rquantz 14y agoThere absolutely is a right to privacy. See the earlier response about Griswold v. Connecticut. I see people frequently saying privacy or things are not rights because they are not enumerated in the Constitution. Please note, however, the Ninth Amendement: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In other words, the people have rights other than those in the Bill of Rights. Courts have determined a number of rights that are not in the Constitution, among them the right to privacy, often based on the fact that people have reserved that right and not been denied it in the past. Some people, for instance, believe that, while the individual right to bear arms is not in the Constitution, there is a strong Ninth Amendment case for it[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#cite_note-Espohl_97-53 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#cit...
- pcote 14y agoThe Row v. Wade decision inferred a constitutional right to privacy within the 14th amendment. If this right exists, then it makes no sense to limit it to specific subclasses.
- derleth 14y ago> Row v. Wade I believe that's what anglers fight over. (It's Roe v. Wade, as in Richard Roe, John Doe's old friend, a classic fake name used by the courts for various purposes. In this case, it was used to protect the identity of the woman seeking the abortion.)
- lotharbot 14y agoSee also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe It's interesting to note that "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade revealed her identity just a few days after the trial ended. She later became a high-profile pro-life activist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey