Skip to main content

View Diary: Justice Thomas Gets One Right (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  hmm (none)
    Make sure the public knows that the Democratic Party supports our right to privacy and the extremist Republicans in power don't.
    I think the problem is that the more you educate people the more they realize how tenuous the right to privacy is.  You can't help but notice that there is no explicitly guaranteed right as such in the Constitution.  You can't say the "XXth Amendment says...", you have to argue the penumbra, overall theories of privacy, etc.  

    It cuts both ways.  It's not guaranteed that more education will cause people to jump onto the privacy bandwagon.  Look at the UK, for example.  They continue to ratchet back the freedom from government that is advocated in the US at the same time they limit recourse.  Simply put, the average citizen is less worried about an invasive government.  

    That's the risk.  There are arguments on both sides of the argument regarding privacy.  In the abstract people support privacy laws and the right in general, but when you start breaking down into specifics and real policies, support splits.  

    I'd like to see a poll that is framed like this:

    "Do you support the right to privacy?"

    "Do you think that the police should be able to obtain a no-knock warrant with only a short hearing in front of a judge?"

    Finally, on the fillibuster of the next candidate, it's going to be tough for Democrat's to achieve.  Bush will probably name a woman.  That'll make it even harder to sustain a fillibuster.  Throw in a few "red state" Democrats, add a Liberman, peel off a democrat on women's issues, and well, we'll see what happens.

    •  the right to privacy (none)
      is a political winner, as well as an essential principle that must be defended for its own sake. I don't know of any voting bloc that's opposed to it other than the Dobsonites, along with a few totalitarians wannabes in the government and neocon think tanks. Both of these groups are dangerous but they're not anywhere near a majority of the public. And most people aren't going to follow the fine points of constitutional law. The only point that needs to be driven home here is the ninth amendment, along with the fact that privacy is an essential principle implicit in the preceding eight. "Don't tread on me" is deep in the DNA of this country. Which is why the larger point that needs to be driven home is that the Democratic party supports our right to privacy, and the Republican party doesn't.

      remember your humanity, and forget the rest

      by human on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 12:17:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right to privacy to what end? (none)
        Does the right to privacy allow me to grow weed in my bathroom and get high in the kitchen?

        Does it allow me to starve my dog to death in my basement?

        Plot terrorost attacks?

        Collect kiddie porn?

        How does one know what i covered by this blanket and what is left exposed? I think that's part of the appeal of this 'right'. It has no text so everyone can imagine it to read just how they would write it.

        If written, what would the text of a privacy right say?

        •  essentially (none)
          that everyone has the right to do what they please so long as they don't interfere with anyone else's right to the same. Meaning that one's right to privacy ends only at the point of causing harm to others (or arguably, in some exceptional cases, oneself). That if you're not harming others, e.g. terrorism or kiddie porn, the government has no business messing with your life. In my experience, this is a principle that most people understand and support across a pretty broad range of subcultures and education levels and even ideological persuasions.  

          remember your humanity, and forget the rest

          by human on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 01:54:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In other words (none)
            Your right to keep and bear arms extends up to the point where you choose to stick a gun in my face.

            I think that's pretty simple...

            So from the grandparent poster.  I don't care if you grow weed in your basement and use it yourself.

            I do care if you starve your dog, collect kiddie porn, or plot a terrorist attack, because those actions effect others.

            •  well (none)
              I do care if you starve your dog
              NOt another person, though.

              collect kiddie porn
              Well let's think about that one, as well.  What if you are the type of perv who goes to public pools and takes photos of little kids naked and/or barely clothed playing in the water?  What about computer generated kiddie porn - no real children abused.  What about all the tiny minute exceptions they try to come up with.  Privacy and all.

              Privacy is not necessarily a winner, politically.  

              •  Well... (none)
                Dogs are another living being, and it's generally accepted that you don't starve dogs or horses or livestock if you can help it.

                Well let's think about that one, as well.  What if you are the type of perv who goes to public pools and takes photos of little kids naked and/or barely clothed playing in the water?  What about computer generated kiddie porn - no real children abused.  What about all the tiny minute exceptions they try to come up with.  Privacy and all.

                Not much you can do about someone taking public pictures.  Now if they were peaking in people's windows, that's different.

                As for computer generated... The SCOTUS ruled that since there were no real person, involved there was no real harm.  It's sick and disgusting, but not illegal.

                Privacy is not necessarily a winner, politically.

                Maybe.  But then either is telling other people how they should run their lives.

                •  answer (none)
                  Not much you can do about someone taking public pictures.  Now if they were peaking in people's windows, that's different.
                  No, actually in most states it is illegal to take "public" photos of people and especially kids that are considered to be lacivious.

                  I agree with you about telling people how to run their lives.

                  But politically, "privacy" is not a sure fire winner if the GOP can convince people to get past "do you like privacy, yes or no?"

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site