# Lifestyles & Discussion > Privacy & Data Security >  Right to Privacy

## BeauGeste

I saw Romney waffling on the right to privacy issue in regards to contraception? How would Ron Paul answered that question? I think the exact question was: Do the states have the right to ban contraceptions? In Ron's strict constitutionalist approach is a right to privacy a federal right or one to be decided at the state level?

----------


## osan

> I saw Romney waffling on the right to privacy issue in regards to contraception? How would Ron Paul answered that question? I think the exact question was: Do the states have the right to ban contraceptions? In Ron's strict constitutionalist approach is a right to privacy a federal right or one to be decided at the state level?


The right to privacy is neither.  It is a fundamental human right and is beyond the legitimate power of third party interference.  Get straight thy thinking, sir.

----------


## BeauGeste

are you basing your answer on the constitution? What in the constitution is used to defend right to privacy?

----------


## AFPVet

The actual right to privacy is implied... most likely under the 9th Amendment. This has been a difficult one to discuss. One must remember, however, that the Constitution does not grant us our rights; rather, it restrains the government from encroaching upon our rights. This is where there is some confusion. The Constitution does not restrict our rights... it restricts the government.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

There is no right to privacy.  SCOTUS has upheld this a few times.

Supreme Court Decisions on Liberty
Privacy
As Justice Hugo Black wrote in the _Griswold vs. Connecticut__ opinion, "'Privacy' is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept." There is no one sense of privacy which can be extracted from the various Court decisions which have touched upon it. The mere act of labeling something "private" and contrasting it with "public" implies that we are dealing with something which should be removed from government interference._
_According to those who emphasize individual autonomy and civil liberties, the existence of a realm of both private property and private conduct should, as much as possible, be left alone by the government. It is this realm which serves to facilitate the moral, personal and intellectual development of each individual, without which a functioning democracy is not possible.
In the cases listed below, you will learn more about how the United States Supreme Court has developed the concept of "privacy" for people in America.
Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.
Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.
Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.
Roe v. Wade (1972)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.
Colautti v. Franklin (1979)
Should doctors be required to try to save the life of a possibly viable fetus when performing an abortion? A Pennsylvania law created such a requirement, but the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. Find out why...
Williams v. Pryor (2000)
The 11th Circuit Court ruled that the Alabama legislature was within its rights to ban the sale of "sex toys," and that people do not necessarily have any right to buy them.
Pottawatomie v. Earls (2001)
How much latitude does a public school have in restricting a student's rights? Can schools force all students to submit to random drug testing merely as a condition of attendance? Can they force all students who participate in activities like band or soccer to submit to random drug testing?
_

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The actual right to privacy is implied... most likely under the 9th Amendment. This has been a difficult one to discuss. One must remember, however, that the Constitution does not grant us our rights; rather, it restrains the government from encroaching upon our rights. This is where there is some confusion. The Constitution does not restrict our rights... it restricts the government.


Article IV and IX are restrictions on government, not protection of "total privacy".

----------


## GuerrillaXXI

I don't recognize the Supreme Court as any authority on human rights, even if that's how the US legal system is set up. The Supreme Court has made a number of stupid and tyrannical decisions.

Even so, there is a legal basis for the right to privacy: the constitutional prohibition on searches without probable cause.

----------


## osan

> are you basing your answer on the constitution? What in the constitution is used to defend right to privacy?


I base my response on reason.  If our basic rights are equal, that alone establishes a complete and sufficient basis for the right to privacy. 

Furthermore, our  rights do not exist or predicate upon any human artifact.  They exist in full by sole virtue of the equal status of our lives.  Because we are equal in this manner, no man stands above another and thereby holds no inherent authority over his fellows.  Having no authority, the right to one's privacy is directly implied.

QED.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> There is no right to privacy.  SCOTUS has upheld this a few times.


SCOTUS isn't the end-all be-all of determining rights.  I reject their rulings on privacy, and I believe Ron Paul does as well.

----------


## Aratus

which SCOTUS session was the best on this, if the current court rulings have drawbacks? just curious...

----------


## osan

> The actual right to privacy is implied... most likely under the 9th Amendment. *This has been a difficult one to discuss*. One must remember, however, that the Constitution does not grant us our rights; rather, it restrains the government from encroaching upon our rights. This is where there is some confusion. The Constitution does not restrict our rights... it restricts the government.


Being unsure of your use of "difficult", I am not sure whether to be perplexed by this statement.

I see nothing difficult about the issue of privacy.  The issue is not only simple, but easily decided - so much so that I am confident any nominally intelligent sixth grader could draw the proper conclusions.

The biggest argument against the right is made by ignorant and dishonest people seeking to gain or justify illegitimate powers over other people.  The absurdity of such positions finds its apex in the "law enforcement" argument where the appeal to emotion is made.  In this argument the common desire for justice is used to great advantage in gaining acceptance of the denial of the right.  Justifying the violation of a fundamental human right based on the purported need of the so-called "state" or it agents to investigate crimes, real or _suspected_ so that justice might be served is just about the most trite, tired, clapped-out lie and excuse on the books; and it works like a charm every time.

The only legitimate power "government" has to investigate is through the observation of public behavior.  No lids may be opened nor stones overturned in pursuit of evidence of guilt.  I am not even sure I accept the notion of "probable cause" as engendered in the Constitution except as a very narrowly defined concept in both philosophical and operational terms.  In a free society one does not violate the rights of the vast majority for the sake of apprehending the vanishingly small population of criminals.  If as an investigator you cannot make a case against a suspected criminal based on evidence obtained without the aid of prying, then too damned bad.  In that case the crook is better than are you and he skates.  $#@!ty as that may seem, the consequences of violating the rights of even the most heinous actors are profound, widespread, and very dangerous to liberty.  The truth of this assertion is readily observable in virtually every nation as we bear witness to the endless erosion of human rights on a daily basis.  Governments caging, beating, torturing, maiming, and murdering their citizens and other enemies, real or imagined, with impunity on a scale that should appall people, but is generally tolerated largely due to the wild success of the appeals to emotion for "justice", as well as the frantically morbid fear of "terrorists" and other bogeymen. 

The general state of human thinking and perception is an unfathomable mess.  People are coming around, to be sure, but whether this is occurring at a sufficient rate has yet to be seen, though my optimism is not high.  Perhaps worse yet, "governments" are possibly in a position of no longer needing to care whether we are in agreement with their agendas, which begs a question as to the nature of these false institutions and who, exactly, controls them ultimately.

----------


## ronpaulitician

Paul said the right to privacy is found in the fourth amendment, right (in last night's debate)?

I thought I had heard him say, previously, that there was no right to privacy (likely in regard to sodomy laws), but he may have just meant that there is no right to privacy in the fourteenth amendment.

----------


## AFPVet

> I don't recognize the Supreme Court as any authority on human rights, even if that's how the US legal system is set up. The Supreme Court has made a number of stupid and tyrannical decisions.
> 
> Even so, there is a legal basis for the right to privacy: the constitutional prohibition on searches without probable cause.


Exactly. There has been a lot of discussion about this. We do have a right to privacy... it is not specifically enumerated. This is based on my understanding of Constitutional History. Once more, the Ninth Amendment includes those rights not specifically enumerated.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Exactly. There has been a lot of discussion about this. We do have a right to privacy... it is not specifically enumerated. This is based on my understanding of Constitutional History. Once more, the Ninth Amendment includes those rights not specifically enumerated.


No.  There are simply places where you have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" (such as your home or in private consultation with a lawyer).

----------


## AFPVet

> No.  There are simply places where you have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" (such as your home or in private consultation with a lawyer).


Griswold v. Connecticut is a good source. I also forgot about the Substantive Due Process which also protects your privacy. Oh, and another thing, there is a reason why the 9th Amendment to the Constitution is in the Bill of Rights. You see, we have other rights not explicitly enumerated by the Constitution. I highly encourage you to read about the history of the 9th Amendment.

Furthermore, you also have the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments in addition to the 9th Amendment . So too, the landmark decision of Grizwold v. Connecticut and Substantive Due Process can be used to protect substantive rights—such as privacy. I studied this thoroughly in college.

----------


## AceNZ

> There is no right to privacy.  SCOTUS has upheld this a few times.


SCOTUS has rejected the entire concept of individual rights, not just the right to privacy. They have claimed that rights are privileges granted by government, for reasons that benefit government. Since they are granted, rights can also be revoked at any time, and for any reason.

SCOTUS is part of the problem.

----------


## onlyrp

> Paul said the right to privacy is found in the fourth amendment, right (in last night's debate)?
> 
> I thought I had heard him say, previously, that there was no right to privacy (likely in regard to sodomy laws), but he may have just meant that there is no right to privacy in the fourteenth amendment.


This is what he actually said.

"Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution"

This opinion on Lawrence v Texas is pretty much the same as Scalia's, that there's no right to sodomy, and therefore sodomy laws are perfectly legal and Constitutional. 

I believe the article is on lewrockwell.com , and if Ron Paul said there's a right to privacy in the Constitution, that's a contradiction to what he said in that article. Is Ron Paul all for privacy until it comes to sodomy (Lawrence v Texas) and abortion (Roe v Wade)?

----------


## bolil

It seems to me that the right to privacy is more the right to defend or protect your privacy, an extension of natural law, like other rights this one can be forfeited, or disregarded, by less prudent individuals.  When the state mandates that ALL people forfeit their right to defend their own privacy by coercively restricting their ability to do so we are in desperate straits.  It is tragic that the majority of americans actually think that by surrendering their and their countrymens rights they somehow become more secure.

When you think about it a "right" to privacy makes no sense.  The right to defend and preserve your privacy makes total sense, again this must be a deliberate voluntary action equally available to any who would choose such a course.  Not all will, it is not the government's place to force anyone to make this choice one way or the other for individuals.  When the government, through coercive means, violates your right to preserve your privacy by legislating your compliance with anti-privacy measures (SOPA, Patriot Act), they force your choice to forfeit it.  I, cry, foul.

On Sodomy: If you choose to engage in sodomy that is your right, and as a Libertarian I would defend it.  However, it is not your right to coerce another into not knowing or publicizing your choice.

----------


## onlyrp

> It seems to me that the right to privacy is more the right to defend or protect your privacy, an extension of natural law, like other rights this one can be forfeited, or disregarded, by less prudent individuals.  When the state mandates that ALL people forfeit their right to defend their own privacy by coercively restricting their ability to do so we are in desperate straits.  It is tragic that the majority of americans actually think that by surrendering their and their countrymens rights they somehow become more secure.
> 
> When you think about it a "right" to privacy makes no sense.  The right to defend and preserve your privacy makes total sense, again this must be a deliberate voluntary action equally available to any who would choose such a course.  Not all will, it is not the government's place to force anyone to make this choice one way or the other for individuals.  When the government, through coercive means, violates your right to preserve your privacy by legislating your compliance with anti-privacy measures (SOPA, Patriot Act), they force your choice to forfeit it.  I, cry, foul.
> 
> On Sodomy: If you choose to engage in sodomy that is your right, and as a Libertarian I would defend it.  However, it is not your right to coerce another into not knowing or publicizing your choice.


what's an example of something you have "right to" , rather than just "right to defend"?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> This is what he actually said.
> 
> "Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution"
> 
> This opinion on Lawrence v Texas is pretty much the same as Scalia's, that there's no right to sodomy, and therefore sodomy laws are perfectly legal and Constitutional. 
> 
> I believe the article is on lewrockwell.com , and if Ron Paul said there's a right to privacy in the Constitution, that's a contradiction to what he said in that article. Is Ron Paul all for privacy until it comes to sodomy (Lawrence v Texas) and abortion (Roe v Wade)?


The Lawrence v Texas position was strictly federalism and jurisdiction; nothing surrounding natural rights.

Ron's position is clearly that it is immoral for government to encroach on your privacy. Your privacy is secured in your property.

----------


## onlyrp

> The Lawrence v Texas position was strictly federalism and jurisdiction; nothing surrounding natural rights.
> 
> Ron's position is clearly that it is immoral for government to encroach on your privacy. Your privacy is secured in your property.


I understand that Lawrence v Texas was a legal question, not a moral one. 

So then, Ron's position on the moral question isn't even applicable. And did I misunderstand or misrepresent him when he said that there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your right to privacy, and States have a legal right to ban sodomy, undermine privacy, perfectly legally?

----------


## bolil

> what's an example of something you have "right to" , rather than just "right to defend"?


We all have a right to liberty, that is but a statement... To preserve the right we must defend it.

Having the right to defend something seems to imply a right to possess that thing.  However, not exercising your right to defend the thing will often result in your losing the thing.  Ideologically speaking rights exist- such as a right to privacy; pragmatically speaking defense of preserves all rights.

I have a right to privacy on my property.  I do not build a fence on my property.  I use a transparent medium to insulate and side my abode.  My neighbor, through no malice or design, can invade my privacy simply by glancing at my house.  It is my actions that led to this invasion.  While I have the right to privacy, my actions forfeited that right much to my own and my neighbors chagrin.  Had I taken reasonable measures to preserve my privacy - such as building a fence and using orthodox mediums for insulation and siding then my neighbor would have to have the intent to invade my privacy thereby violating my right that I had taken reasonable measure to protect.

Does this make sense?  I hope so.

----------


## onlyrp

> We all have a right to liberty, that is but a statement... To preserve the right we must defend it.
> 
> Having the right to defend something seems to imply a right to possess that thing.  However, not exercising your right to defend the thing will often result in your losing the thing.  Ideologically speaking rights exist- such as a right to privacy; pragmatically speaking defense of preserves all rights.
> 
> I have a right to privacy on my property.  I do not build a fence on my property.  I use a transparent medium to insulate and side my abode.  My neighbor, through no malice or design, can invade my privacy simply by glancing at my house.  It is my actions that led to this invasion.  While I have the right to privacy, my actions forfeited that right much to my own and my neighbors chagrin.  Had I taken reasonable measures to preserve my privacy - such as building a fence and using orthodox mediums for insulation and siding then my neighbor would have to have the intent to invade my privacy thereby violating my right that I had taken reasonable measure to protect.
> 
> Does this make sense?  I hope so.


So you didn't give me ONE example of something you have right to (and not just right to defend). Or is "liberty" your one example?

I understand having a right to something automatically means you have a right to defend it. The reason I ask this is, you can literally say you have no right to anything, just a right to defend, property, privacy, liberty, life, reputation, ...etc. Am I right?

----------


## bolil

Liberty is the only example required, as it necessarily precedes the others, and in the same vein as Ron Paul I do not see how life can be disconnected from liberty.

Besides the right to self-govern, that is to say the right to do with my own body what I will, I do not see any other "rights" granted by virtue of being human our other "rights" are attained, as they are proven only, through action.  Do I have a right to property? Not until I attain some, barriers to the acquisition of property can be considered an infringement of that right.  Do I have a right to privacy? Not unless I take measures to preserve it.  Education? not unless I pursue it. et al.

Rights, in this way, are like muscles.  Inherently weak, but with exercise can be made hard as rock.  Liberty is the brain that allows us to exercise, and thereby realize, our other "rights".

----------


## AFPVet

> Liberty is the only example required, as it necessarily precedes the others, and in the same vein as Ron Paul I do not see how life can be disconnected from liberty.
> 
> Besides the right to self-govern, that is to say the right to do with my own body what I will, I do not see any other "rights" granted by virtue of being human our other "rights" are attained, as they are proven only, through action.  Do I have a right to property? Not until I attain some, barriers to the acquisition of property can be considered an infringement of that right.  Do I have a right to privacy? Not unless I take measures to preserve it.  Education? not unless I pursue it. et al.
> 
> Rights, in this way, are like muscles.  Inherently weak, but with exercise can be made hard as rock.  *Liberty is the brain that allows us to exercise, and thereby realize, our other "rights".*


Well said + rep.

----------


## onlyrp

> Liberty is the only example required, as it necessarily precedes the others, and in the same vein as Ron Paul I do not see how life can be disconnected from liberty.


Now explain to me , what does "have a right to liberty" mean, if it doesn't mean just "have a right to defend liberty"? Does it mean you have an entitlement to the result? 

Also, what does "have a right to self govern" mean, in addition to simply "have a right to defend self governance"? Until you can show how they are different, it's pointless to say "you don't have a right to A, just a right to defend A"

----------


## bolil

Errr....hmmmm? Read my post the entire way through please thanks.

----------


## onlyrp

> Errr....hmmmm? Read my post the entire way through please thanks.


let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that liberty is a right you have without any requirement of pursuit, all others, you only have a right to after you've pursued it?

----------


## Inny Binny

The right to privacy doesn't exist per se, but it does exist as far as the right to private property exists. No-one has a right to barge into your property so in that sense you can protect your privacy. However if you're having fun on the kitchen table and you forget to shut the blinds, you don't have a right not to be taped. So the solution is to shut the blinds.

----------


## onlyrp

> The right to privacy doesn't exist per se, but it does exist as far as the right to private property exists. No-one has a right to barge into your property so in that sense you can protect your privacy. However if you're having fun on the kitchen table and you forget to shut the blinds, you don't have a right not to be taped. So the solution is to shut the blinds.


does right to private property exist per se? or just a right to defend private property?

----------


## Inny Binny

The right to defend private property comes from the right to private property. If we didn't have the latter right, we wouldn't be able to use force to protect it.

----------


## onlyrp

> The right to defend private property comes from the right to private property. If we didn't have the latter right, we wouldn't be able to use force to protect it.


can't you just replace the word private property with privacy?

----------


## bolil

You dont have a right to private property.  Ill let Murray Rothbard answer this for me: "A "right," philosophically, must be something embedded in the nature of man and reality, something that can be preserved and maintained at any tune and in any age.  The "right" of self-ownership, of defending one's life and property, is clearly that sort of right...  Such a right is independent of time or place"- _For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto_

You have a right to defend your property, inherently, but don't have a "right" to property.  To say that you have a right to property implies that certain people are created less equal than others, speaking in terms of rights, as they have no property.  They have the potential, or the right, to pursue and attain property, given, but this is not the same as having a "right" to property.  Why is this so hard to understand?

You have a right to defend your privacy, inherently, but don't have a "right" to privacy as a "right" is something that CANNOT be forsaken.  If I choose to I can forsake my privacy.  Even my deepest darkest secrets can be revealed if I choose to.  Therefore it is not a right.  Liberty, however, cannot be abandoned because it is a NATURAL RIGHT.  A human being cannot entirely divorce themselves from liberty, to vacate life makes it all a non-issue.

Ill try another angle.  Our DOI: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain *UNALIENABLE* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..."

----------


## Tom in NYC

A great way to think about this is to read Griswold v. Connecticut, the case the question was based on. It's a really interesting opinion by Justice Kennedy that focuses on liberty as the source of privacy rights (i.e. that they are an extension of liberty, not a separate right that needs to be defined).

----------


## bolil

yes that.

----------


## DamianTV

> I saw Romney waffling on the right to privacy issue in regards to contraception? How would Ron Paul answered that question? I think the exact question was: Do the states have the right to ban contraceptions? In Ron's strict constitutionalist approach is a right to privacy a federal right or one to be decided at the state level?


One way or the other, those that want some form of contraception will either claim their privacy by using contraception, or will claim their privacy by having a back alley abortion.  Those that have no intention of using contraception (either for their beliefs, or maybe they are trying to have a child) would not be affected, thus, they would not stick up for the rights of those that would choose contraception.

A couple of points here.

1:  Making anything illegal only creates a Black Market for it, if there is a demand for it, just like drugs.

2:  This usually comes from a Religious Perspective.  Separation of Church and State.

3:  This is a door to flat out making Sex Illegal.

4:  The Government solution to any problem is usually worse than the problem itself.

5:  If there is no actual problem, the one proposing that something is a problem usually has their own solution that benefits them in some way shape or form.

6:  A Woman's Uterus is not the Property of the Federal Government.  However, neither is it the Property of the State Government.  And for that matter, it is no ones property but the Woman herself.  Not even that of her Husbands, or Parents.  When kids are born, that does become a different story...

7:  The reason we have a Right to Privacy (Penumbra Right) is to prevent abuses of the State.

8:  This is a perfect example of how Democracy fails.  A Republic is designed to protect the Rights of the Individual from all of those who would infringe upon that Right, even when the Infringer is the Majority.

9:  Our Rights do not come from them being Enumerated.  Instead, Rights are Enumerated because we have them to begin with.  Rights are not subject to someone elses allowance to have them.  If that were the case, then we would only have Permissions, and not Rights.

We do not and should not ever need to enumerate Common Sense Rights.  The Right to have a Nose, or to Breathe.  This is why the Constitution was written.  Powers not expressly permitted to the Government are DENIED to the Government.  Thus, the Government does not have the power (which should be Common Sense) to Infringe upon the Right of a Human Being to have two eyes, a nose, and a mouth, and respect ones Right to the Freedom of Speech, or Religion.

That being said, this is also a First Amendment Right.  If Contraception were Banned, it would be Banned usually based on someone elses Religious Beliefs.  The 1st Amendment guarantees us Freedom of Religion.  That means that we are free to choose our own Religious Beliefs and to be free of others (including both People and State) forcibly imposing their Religious Beliefs onto others, even those of the same Religious (or lack thereof) Beliefs.  If it is not against your beliefs to use contraception or to have abortions, then so be it, but it should never be within someone elses power to disallow anyone any action based solely on their Religious Beliefs.

That is the very basis where if something someone else does offends your beliefs, as long as it does not involve you directly, tough $#@!.  Likewise, you most likely do something that offends someone else in some way.  And as long as those actions do not adversely and directly affect the offended individual (eating fish on a Tuesday or something facetious like that), you can tell them tough $#@! as well.  That is one of the consequences of having too much freedom as opposed to having too little of it.

----------

