At 00:04 -0700 7/24/00, Tim May wrote:
>At 9:27 PM -0400 7/23/00, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>
>>> My point, though, is a simple one: What is good and what is bad
>>> does not depend on majority vote. For instance, I'd say that
>>> most Americans would say that police should have the ability
>>> to descramble documents when investigating kidnapping cases, etc.
>>>
>>> Would that make it right?
>>
>>The majority is often wrong.
>>
>>The issue we keep hitting with this particular series of events can be
>>summed up as follows:
>>
>>What is more important? The right to privacy, or freedom of the
>>press? Sometimes the two are in direct opposition.
>
>As Judge Bork correctly noted, there is no "right to privacy."
Allow me to clarify this slightly. In some sense their is a right to
privacy- their are certain areas were Government is simply not
allowed. The supreme court rulings are EXTREMELY controversial (Roe
vs. Wade is by far the most public but there are a number of rulings
that lead up to the that are also on debatable constitutional
footing). The jist of the Roe vs. Wade descision (and an earlier
case whose name I do not recall which involved the outlawing of birth
control use) was that enforcement of these laws would require such
unbearable invasions of ones person that by virtue of this the laws
were unconstitutional. Another way of putting this would be for the
government to outlaw brushing ones teeth. By it's very nature the
"crime" generally takes place in the privacy of ones home and so the
only way to catch even a small majority of individuals would be to
place everyone under near constant surveillance and try to catch
someone in the act. The constitutionality of this framework,
however, is very questionable. Clearly the right is not enumerated.
Clearly the sweeping ruling in Roe vs. Wade has caused untold
problems of constitutionality and legislation. Those sorts of
problems are generally seen as being caused by overly broad decisions
that take the power to lead on an issue from the legislature and
instead force the courts to spend the next several rulings trying to
make law, a roll they are very poor at.
However that is all besides the point, the crucial point is this-
like all the "rights" in the constitution this absolutely does not
apply to any organization other than the government. Their is
absolutely no constitutional requirement that a business follow any
of the points layed out in the constitution (at least in regards to
the first 10 amendments). They simply do not apply. All are
"rights" in the constitution are not truly rights of the typical sort
"you can expect to be treated this way, you can demand that others
not do this to you" but are of the sort "GOVERNMENT is absolutely
forbidden, under any circumstances, from doing X". If China were to
invade tomorrow and push the California border back to the
Mississippi, the government can still not force you to put soldiers
up in your house. They can buy it for a reasonable, fair market
value, and they can force you to sell, but as long as that house is
owned by you, you get to say who if and when government agents live
there. Substitute employer for government in the previous scenario,
however, and the situation is quite different. Then can ask, they
can demand, they can even force you to house marketing droids, and
still, not a single one of your constitutional rights was ever
violated. It may be illegal based on the laws this land is run by
but it is certainly not unconstitutional. And so, in answer to your
original question, neither, the two rights (right to privacy and
freedom of the press) are NEVER in opposition because neither of them
apply to non-governmental agencies.
--
Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ#23758827
_______________________________________________________________________________
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both
instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly
unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware
of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting
victims of the darkness."
-- Justice William O. Douglas
