3 ms·

First, the Constitution itself doesn't say that only U.S. citizens in U.S. territory enjoy its protections. And the Declaration of Independence (which is not le

First, the Constitution itself doesn't say that only U.S. citizens in U.S. territory enjoy its protections. And the Declaration of Independence (which is not legally binding the way the Constitution is, but should give an idea of the mindset of the time) states all men are created equal. Second, if we believe ideologically that privacy is a human right that should be protected, it is hypocritical to then say "Oh, but only for Americans. Everyone else can go fuck themselves." and it weakens the arguments for privacy in America as well as U.S. attempts to encourage other countries to protect privacy and other civil rights.

mpyne 13y ago
> First, the Constitution itself doesn't say that only U.S. citizens in U.S. territory enjoy its protections. The Constitution itself doesn't say a lot about hardly anything. I just looked at it (the real thing) the other day, it's even shorter than it seems at first from looking at it online. In the event, the courts have consistently ruled that Constitutional protections are not completely binding everywhere in the world, even protections included in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment specifically does not apply outside U.S. borders, for example, even though it does apply to anyone in U.S. borders (not just U.S. citizens). > And the Declaration of Independence (which is not legally binding the way the Constitution is, but should give an idea of the mindset of the time) states all men are created equal. I don't think this really helps your argument. The mindset of the time were the Negroes were not even men, for example, and they certainly had no 'right' to privacy according to those who issued the Declaration. So I'm sympathetic to the point. I think we need to change something to bring our law in accordance with norms we'd expect for the Internet. But just pointing to the 'Charters of Freedom' will not help your argument (others have tried and failed), and they don't mean today what you think they mean.
rayiner 13y ago
> First, the Constitution itself doesn't say that only U.S. citizens in U.S. territory enjoy its protections. If the Constitution said: "people in France owe us taxes" would that be valid and binding? Of course not. American law cannot impose obligations on the French, and reciprocally, American law cannot give rights to the French. The Constitution is law, and American law extends to American soil and American citizens abroad. That's the nature of law. > And the Declaration of Independence (which is not legally binding the way the Constitution is, but should give an idea of the mindset of the time) states all men are created equal. To get a full idea of the "mindset of the time" the Declaration of Independence used flowery language like "all men are created equal" but the Constitution enshrined slavery into law for another generation and set up a system of government where only white, landowning males could vote. If the founders didn't think that blacks or women born on U.S. soil had rights under the Constitution, why on earth would you assume they thought anyone not born on U.S. soil would have rights?
- dclowd9901 13y ago
  Just because it isn't recognized or judicial law doesn't mean it's meaningless. The statement that "all men are created equal" is a dictum and a recognition that despite the freedoms a person is afforded by their place of residence, the United States recognizes their right to their freedom. This has been the foundation of American foreign policy (with hit-or-miss adherence to its message). Yes, the US does not have jurisprudence over French law, but if the French were to become a violent, repressive dictatorship, we've stated our moral obligations, which are aligned with aiding the French people.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    France became a violent, repressive dictatorship very soon after U.S. independence, in the aftermath of the French Revolution, and we did nothing.
- ataggart 13y ago
  >If the Constitution said: "people in France owe us taxes" would that be valid and binding? Yes, because the text would be a grant of power to the US federal government to try and collect taxes from the people of France. Such text says absolutely nothing about the rights or obligations of the people of France. Likewise the Constitution does not "give rights" to people, except insofar as it prohibits/mandates actions of the Federal and/or State governments.
- Cederfjard 13y ago
  So I know it is not nor has it ever been legally binding, but what are your thoughts on the UDHR with regards to this discussion? Is it just a document of pretty words to disregard when convenient, or does it hold any signifigance? Article 12 states that: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Like most UN declarations, it's meaningless. Among other things, it guarantees: Article 23: unions; Article 24: leisure and paid holidays; Article 25: food, clothing, housing, medical care, unemployment benefits, sickness and disability benefits, old age benefits; Article 26: free education. None of these things are recognized as "rights" in the U.S. The U.S. has assiduously avoided being bound by international tribunals, and thus nothing in the UNDHR can be enforced as a right against the U.S., and nothing that can't be enforced merits the name "right." The UNDHR was an aspirational document that was conceived at a time before it was realized how awful an idea it was to enter into an international union with all of the nations of the world, and before Americans fully appreciated how unwilling they were to cede any sovereignty to an international body.

mpyne 13y ago

> First, the Constitution itself doesn't say that only U.S. citizens in U.S. territory enjoy its protections. The Constitution itself doesn't say a lot about hardly anything. I just looked at it (the real thing) the other day, it's even shorter than it seems at first from looking at it online. In the event, the courts have consistently ruled that Constitutional protections are not completely binding everywhere in the world, even protections included in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment specifically does not apply outside U.S. borders, for example, even though it does apply to anyone in U.S. borders (not just U.S. citizens). > And the Declaration of Independence (which is not legally binding the way the Constitution is, but should give an idea of the mindset of the time) states all men are created equal. I don't think this really helps your argument. The mindset of the time were the Negroes were not even men, for example, and they certainly had no 'right' to privacy according to those who issued the Declaration. So I'm sympathetic to the point. I think we need to change something to bring our law in accordance with norms we'd expect for the Internet. But just pointing to the 'Charters of Freedom' will not help your argument (others have tried and failed), and they don't mean today what you think they mean.

rayiner 13y ago

> First, the Constitution itself doesn't say that only U.S. citizens in U.S. territory enjoy its protections. If the Constitution said: "people in France owe us taxes" would that be valid and binding? Of course not. American law cannot impose obligations on the French, and reciprocally, American law cannot give rights to the French. The Constitution is law, and American law extends to American soil and American citizens abroad. That's the nature of law. > And the Declaration of Independence (which is not legally binding the way the Constitution is, but should give an idea of the mindset of the time) states all men are created equal. To get a full idea of the "mindset of the time" the Declaration of Independence used flowery language like "all men are created equal" but the Constitution enshrined slavery into law for another generation and set up a system of government where only white, landowning males could vote. If the founders didn't think that blacks or women born on U.S. soil had rights under the Constitution, why on earth would you assume they thought anyone not born on U.S. soil would have rights?

dclowd9901 13y ago
Just because it isn't recognized or judicial law doesn't mean it's meaningless. The statement that "all men are created equal" is a dictum and a recognition that despite the freedoms a person is afforded by their place of residence, the United States recognizes their right to their freedom. This has been the foundation of American foreign policy (with hit-or-miss adherence to its message). Yes, the US does not have jurisprudence over French law, but if the French were to become a violent, repressive dictatorship, we've stated our moral obligations, which are aligned with aiding the French people.
- rayiner 13y ago
  France became a violent, repressive dictatorship very soon after U.S. independence, in the aftermath of the French Revolution, and we did nothing.
ataggart 13y ago
>If the Constitution said: "people in France owe us taxes" would that be valid and binding? Yes, because the text would be a grant of power to the US federal government to try and collect taxes from the people of France. Such text says absolutely nothing about the rights or obligations of the people of France. Likewise the Constitution does not "give rights" to people, except insofar as it prohibits/mandates actions of the Federal and/or State governments.
Cederfjard 13y ago
So I know it is not nor has it ever been legally binding, but what are your thoughts on the UDHR with regards to this discussion? Is it just a document of pretty words to disregard when convenient, or does it hold any signifigance? Article 12 states that: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
- rayiner 13y ago
  Like most UN declarations, it's meaningless. Among other things, it guarantees: Article 23: unions; Article 24: leisure and paid holidays; Article 25: food, clothing, housing, medical care, unemployment benefits, sickness and disability benefits, old age benefits; Article 26: free education. None of these things are recognized as "rights" in the U.S. The U.S. has assiduously avoided being bound by international tribunals, and thus nothing in the UNDHR can be enforced as a right against the U.S., and nothing that can't be enforced merits the name "right." The UNDHR was an aspirational document that was conceived at a time before it was realized how awful an idea it was to enter into an international union with all of the nations of the world, and before Americans fully appreciated how unwilling they were to cede any sovereignty to an international body.