Freedom of speech vs Right to privacy

[Mr Cat Dog]

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

Article 8.1: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

How important are both the right to freedom of speech and the right to privacy to the functioning of a democratic society? Do they have to absolute, or can they be waived in certain circumstances? What about when the two principles clash e.g. selling tales of sordid love affairs to the press? Which takes precedence - if at all - over the other?

Just some stuff to think about.

 

[Esper]

As someone who just started reading an anthology of dystopian short fiction I am all over this thread.

Privacy and free speech are quite necessary since there is very little justifiable reason for a government to have any input in these areas. They are the canary in the mine, so to speak, of how free a society is. We know we aren't be oppressed because we have privacy and can speak in public without fear of retribution.

I don't think they are absolute rights and in some cases there can be a valid reason to trespass on them. Mostly I'm thinking about the classic "shouting fire in a theatre" idea where acting on these rights has a very real chance of causing direct harm to others. I don't believe that causing unnecessary harm is something that should be protected, though obviously we could come up with a complicated scenario in which different people's rights and so on are in conflict and someone is going to walk away harmed, but I don't want to make my post too long going into that.

Thinking about it, I'm having trouble coming up with a reason why government would need to invade your privacy so I have to think that's the more important right to protect. Sure, you could invade someone's privacy if, say, they were abusing a family member, but that there is a crime already and shouldn't be protected. If a person causing harm under the protection of privacy has their privacy trampled on to save someone from harm then that's fine, generally.

 

[Alex]

I think we're very lucky to be growing up in a land where this ammendment or that Article is in effect. But there's definitely corruption in both of these at a political level, which is unfortunate, but not surprising. I think freedom of speech and right to privacy are two very necessary rights. I think it allows for a society to progress very well. While they're both important, the difference is that I do believe freedom of speech should be absolute, whereas the right to privacy has some wiggle room.

Freedom of speech allows for the press to be widespread, and allows for people to write their own blogs and the like, especially easy on the Internet, where it can connect to millions of peoples in a matter of minutes. You can oppose by mentioning child pornographers and pedophiles and other offensive and disturbing content floating around the Internet. Just cause they're there doesn't mean you have to look at them. Browsers should have their own blocking functions that blocks webpages specific to you that you wish to not see. Simple as that in my opinion. The idea of "censorship for the sake of cybersecurity" is just awful.

Right to privacy, a little different. I think there are certain figures in the world that should have their privacy rather stripped. I feel that I would want to know what (major) things are happening in the life of my prime minister so that I know he's in the right mindset to run my country. It's not easy being the head of a nation. Especially that it's a four-year commitment.

I also want to bring up drug abuse: I think the right to privacy plays a role here because, while I do believe the government has no say in my home or bedroom, if a person is willingly damaging their body by taking drugs (prescription or illegal), people that can help should be alarmed. And NO, not the police. We need to get these people into rehab and help them better themselves. This is in the case of heroin, methamphetamine, all that good stuff. I do however believe that our country's laws are too harsh on marijuana. Just throwin' that out there.

The permission of invasion to one's privacy can also be granted if they are suspicious of something, or have been accused and enough evidence has been gathered. However, I think a lot of enforcement officers abuse this already-instilled right to them, and use suspicions completely irrelevant to why they want a warrant to raid their home. That shouldn't be possible.

My jumbled thoughts.

 

[Bela]

I also want to bring up drug abuse: I think the right to privacy plays a role here because, while I do believe the government has no say in my home or bedroom, if a person is willingly damaging their body by taking drugs (prescription or illegal), people that can help should be alarmed. And NO, not the police. We need to get these people into rehab and help them better themselves. This is in the case of heroin, methamphetamine, all that good stuff. I do however believe that our country's laws are too harsh on marijuana. Just throwin' that out there.

Why should a person not be allowed to willingly destroy themselves with drugs? If it is their desire to do so, who are you to get in their way? What if it was something like wanting to end their own life--would you similarly get inbetween them and those desires?

It's funny to me that you don't like it if the government imposes certain things upon people, while at the same time you're okay with imposing upon others your own value judgements with what they should be doing with their own lives.

 

[Nihilego]

Why should a person not be allowed to willingly destroy themselves with drugs? If it is their desire to do so, who are you to get in their way? What if it was something like wanting to end their own life--would you similarly get inbetween them and those desires?

I think self-destruction through drug abuse is a pretty objectively bad thing. There's no point in completely wasting a life. And with stuff that has only negative effects, I don't see why intervention shouldn't be taken. So yeah, I'd personally agree with Penatrait there. This is a case where the right to privacy has to be bypassed a little for the greater good.

Regarding the latter part of what I quoted, though, about the thing about people that want to end their own life... imo, don't get involved there unless you really know the person in question and know that for them to end their life would be irrational. Most people have very few others who know them this well, so 9 times out of 10, I'd just say to stay out of it.

 

[Alex]

Why should a person not be allowed to willingly destroy themselves with drugs? If it is their desire to do so, who are you to get in their way? What if it was something like wanting to end their own life--would you similarly get inbetween them and those desires?

It's funny to me that you don't like it if the government imposes certain things upon people, while at the same time you're okay with imposing upon others your own value judgements with what they should be doing with their own lives.

The idea here is for everyone's benefit in mind. When it comes to drug abuse or suicide, I feel that it is our duty to help our fellow human stay alive.

Let's take a hypothetical situation. A person who is thinking of ending his life may talk to one or two close people to him about it (assuming he has close friends/family). Just by doing that, he's sort of setting himself up for some sort of intervention. You can be sure that his friends will want to snap him out of it and if they want to call for help against this person's suicide, they should be able to. If someone really did want to kill themselves, they would do it with as much discretion as possible. That way they don't have to deal with any problems.

So yes. If the ultimate goal is to save human lives that are directly being endangered, I would say the breach of privacy is a small price to pay. Although I would never condone supervision in one's home for the sake of security. Only when a problem has rised can law enforcement make a move.

 

[Oryx]

The idea here is for everyone's benefit in mind. When it comes to drug abuse or suicide, I feel that it is our duty to help our fellow human stay alive.

Let's take a hypothetical situation. A person who is thinking of ending his life may talk to one or two close people to him about it (assuming he has close friends/family). Just by doing that, he's sort of setting himself up for some sort of intervention. You can be sure that his friends will want to snap him out of it and if they want to call for help against this person's suicide, they should be able to. If someone really did want to kill themselves, they would do it with as much discretion as possible. That way they don't have to deal with any problems.

So yes. If the ultimate goal is to save human lives that are directly being endangered, I would say the breach of privacy is a small price to pay. Although I would never condone supervision in one's home for the sake of security. Only when a problem has rised can law enforcement make a move.

I agree with you on the suicide but disagree with you on the drugs. In my opinion, unless the drug has been proven to make most people that take it violent and therefore a threat to society. Although to be fair, many people that drink become violent because of it and it's still legal, so...it's a difficult line to draw. I believe that someone that chooses to take a drug, while knowing the risks and physical problems they probably will encounter, should be allowed to continue to take that drug as long as they like. It's their body to destroy as they wish. It's a scary thought, especially now that the American government has begun to ban certain ingredients being used in food; will it extend to every meal having to have a certain level of nutrition? Will we not be allowed to buy junk food because it's bad for us, and the private use of our bodies should be violated to allow for the government to step in and regulate our diets?

Suicide however, I don't believe is the same way. There are very, very few instances where the person who is suicidal is in their right mind, most of the time they're caught in a mental illness spiral that they can't control and wouldn't want to kill themselves otherwise. There's also the point that talking to other people about it is an implication that they don't completely want to do it, because otherwise they would have just done it.

The only time (outside of crimes) that I think a person needs to have their right to privacy revoked is when they're not in their right mind and are going to harm themselves or others because of it. A person that wants to do something that they know is harmful or carries a risk? Knock yourself out. A person that isn't rational or understanding of the risks should be protected, just as a child would be.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Neither right is absolute. Defamation laws and copyright laws protect people's privacy rights and balance them with freedom of speech.

 

[Mr Cat Dog]

I think there are certain figures in the world that should have their privacy rather stripped. I feel that I would want to know what (major) things are happening in the life of my prime minister so that I know he's in the right mindset to run my country.

It's this sort of stuff that interests me: are politicians in their own league when it comes to breaches of privacy being broadcast in the press? What about 'celebrities' in gossip magazines?

I spent a whole year studying this stuff at uni and I still don't precisely know where I stand on the issue! :D

 

[arbok]

Both these rights are needed in a pure democracy but I really don't think pure democracy is a good long term form of Government. If the goal was democracy then these should be enforced by all courts and law needed but the question arises as to would we rather be safe or democratic? If, say, your neighbour was a reforming pedophile then wouldn't you like to know? Or does this persons right to privicy prevent you from knowing, in some cases they may be reforming so these things need to be private but at the same time the risk is there.
Politicians are also protected but if they're representing the public then all must come to light about their wrong doings. I do disagree with the media getting all hyped up about 'unruly' behavour from certain people though, ecpecially if its something everyone else does "Mr. X was seen drunk!!" To me it makes them more human rather than embarrising and that is when I agree with these laws.
Freedom of Information is critical in preventing dictatorship. It could just lead to false democracy when theres really only one person to vote for because the state has blocked all opponents. But when should it become unacceptible. Is it fair to allow racism and sexism because its freespeach? I'd say no but in pure democracy all voices must be heard.
In short = These are really tricky issues

 

[twocows]

The right to privacy is a relatively new concept; it didn't even exist in older times. Still, I appreciate it; it seems necessary given how much people overreact to stuff these days.

I disagree with the right to speech on a fundamental level. Sure, having a government agency telling you what you can and can't say is obviously a bad thing. But that's the extreme. What I have issue with is people with no expertise on an issue thinking that their opinion is worth something. It's not. If you're not well-versed on a subject or can offer some insight as someone affected by it, your opinion on that subject is worthless.

I work in the technology sector and it's a real pain sometimes because I'll come up against some problem and every idiot thinks they have the solution. I wouldn't be in this field if this stuff was easy enough that you idiots could solve it on your own in five minutes.

 

[Esper]

It's this sort of stuff that interests me: are politicians in their own league when it comes to breaches of privacy being broadcast in the press? What about 'celebrities' in gossip magazines?

I spent a whole year studying this stuff at uni and I still don't precisely know where I stand on the issue! :D

It makes a certain sense for politicians to have less privacy. They are our representatives in government. They choose to be our voice and we in turn agree to give up our power to them while trusting them to fight for our interests. We do need to have some assurance that they aren't corrupt and don't have agendas that they don't talk about. I'm not saying that their every move has to be scrutinized, but I dunno, their tax history or whatever should be open and stuff like that so we know if they're being paid by anyone. I'm sure on some level things like this are available, but they need to be at the forefront.

Celebrities don't "run" for their celebrity status and don't represent the people's interests in policy making so their lives should be as private as regular people's. We have no reasonable interest in their personal lives aside from entertainment and that's not a good enough reason to invade their privacy.

 

[Alex]

It's this sort of stuff that interests me: are politicians in their own league when it comes to breaches of privacy being broadcast in the press? What about 'celebrities' in gossip magazines?

In a democratic society where these people are chosen by the nation to represent that nation, it's understandable for the people to want some sort of info on their elected head's personal life. We don't need to know how many times per week he/she is having sex with their spouse, but anything major such as familial problems or health issues.

Celebrities are ridiculous. The breach of their privacy is an after-effect of fame. I honestly couldn't give a crap about their lives and more people need to start agreeing. Those who are legitimately interested in the private lives of their favourite celebrities are just looking for an escape from how boring their own lives are. The best part is, you can tell celebrities hate having their private lives stripped away. I don't think it's worth the fame and money at all. If I couldn't go to my favourite coffee shop to sit down, read the paper and have a cup o' joe without having to worry about being spotted....well I don't know what I'd do.

 

[Livewire]

Americans want privacy, yet allow their privacy to be violated almost daily in dozens of ways, from the White House's policies to Facebook. Any right to privacy we had, or thought we had, died on September 11th. We as a public sacrificed privacy, along with many other civil liberties, in the name of 'security'.