Politically speaking......is anyone else bothered by this?

Sabra · November 6th, 2007, 03:06 PM

According to the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States, we have certain unalienable rights. One being the right to privacy. Is anyone else bothered by the fact, this right now seems to be taken away?

Unless you're totally and completely oblivious, you've heard of the debacle involving Duane "Dog" Chapman. I'm not here to pass judgement on him, not here to debate whether or not his show should be cancelled, whether or not he's a bigot or whether or not he's remorseful and should he or should he not be forgiven. Suddenly, it's ok, to submit to the media a private conversation between two people?

If this was "Bob" down the street, talking to son "Bill" on the phone, ranting and raving about his dislike of a girlfriend, who he feels is wrong for "Bill", using the "N" word, among other colorful phraseology, probably would not be an issue, but because the Dog is a celebrity, his privacy has been invaded. This I find absolutely wrong. I blame the media and the government. The media, with their right to know attitude, which is colored and influenced by what the powers at the networks, pick and choose what that is. The government for becoming more and more the "Big Brother", who it seems to be watching, indiscriminately without just cause, under the premise of protecting the country.

Addie · November 6th, 2007, 05:38 PM

Sabra, don't get me wrong, I agree with you, and yes, we are losing civil rights faster than I-don't-know-what, but surprisingly, there is no right of privacy in the constitution.

Over the years, Supreme Court decisions have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such, we do have privacy protections, but the cases establishing that right dealt with issues like contraception (Griswold and Eisenstadt), interracial marriage (Loving) and of course, abortion. (Roe v. Wade.)

Even Bush's warrantless wiretapping differs from the above privacy issues as it falls under the 4th amendment which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. I believe the 9th and the 14th amendments were used for the cases above.

Additionally, and most importantly, our constitutional rights apply only when we're dealing with the government, not when dealing with a private citizen, or private company, etc.

If I have the story correct, this was a relative of the bounty hunter, taping and releasing the tape, (not unlike the Alec Baldwin incident). This probably falls under "taping", but since there was no government involvement, there is no constitutional issue here.

At most, he might have a civil case against the relative. Even then, it would depend on which state we're talking about, as laws on taping differ from state to state.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying.

Sabra · November 6th, 2007, 05:57 PM

"The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution."

Amendment X basically says the government has no power to tell the people what to do except in areas specifically stated in the Constitution. Which basically means the government has no right to invade our privacy. That's where I got the right to privacy from.

Thanks for agreeing with me though.

November 6th, 2007, 03:06 PM	#1
Sabra Registered User Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 208	Politically speaking......is anyone else bothered by this? According to the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States, we have certain unalienable rights. One being the right to privacy. Is anyone else bothered by the fact, this right now seems to be taken away? Unless you're totally and completely oblivious, you've heard of the debacle involving Duane "Dog" Chapman. I'm not here to pass judgement on him, not here to debate whether or not his show should be cancelled, whether or not he's a bigot or whether or not he's remorseful and should he or should he not be forgiven. Suddenly, it's ok, to submit to the media a private conversation between two people? If this was "Bob" down the street, talking to son "Bill" on the phone, ranting and raving about his dislike of a girlfriend, who he feels is wrong for "Bill", using the "N" word, among other colorful phraseology, probably would not be an issue, but because the Dog is a celebrity, his privacy has been invaded. This I find absolutely wrong. I blame the media and the government. The media, with their right to know attitude, which is colored and influenced by what the powers at the networks, pick and choose what that is. The government for becoming more and more the "Big Brother", who it seems to be watching, indiscriminately without just cause, under the premise of protecting the country.

November 6th, 2007, 05:38 PM	#2
Addie Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 436	Sabra, don't get me wrong, I agree with you, and yes, we are losing civil rights faster than I-don't-know-what, but surprisingly, there is no right of privacy in the constitution. Over the years, Supreme Court decisions have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such, we do have privacy protections, but the cases establishing that right dealt with issues like contraception (Griswold and Eisenstadt), interracial marriage (Loving) and of course, abortion. (Roe v. Wade.) Even Bush's warrantless wiretapping differs from the above privacy issues as it falls under the 4th amendment which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. I believe the 9th and the 14th amendments were used for the cases above. Additionally, and most importantly, our constitutional rights apply only when we're dealing with the government, not when dealing with a private citizen, or private company, etc. If I have the story correct, this was a relative of the bounty hunter, taping and releasing the tape, (not unlike the Alec Baldwin incident). This probably falls under "taping", but since there was no government involvement, there is no constitutional issue here. At most, he might have a civil case against the relative. Even then, it would depend on which state we're talking about, as laws on taping differ from state to state. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying.

November 6th, 2007, 05:57 PM	#3
Sabra Registered User Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 208	"The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution." Amendment X basically says the government has no power to tell the people what to do except in areas specifically stated in the Constitution. Which basically means the government has no right to invade our privacy. That's where I got the right to privacy from. Thanks for agreeing with me though.