Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 03:51 PM 4/12/98 EDT, Dave Y wrote: > Dan, if you don't already you should be living in one of these antisocial >gated communities that have spread like a lesions thruought Southern >California. Yes, privacy is a right that belongs to the public, LIKE THE RIGHT >TO A FREE PRESS. The right to a free press doesn't belong to the journalist, >it belongs to the public, and you need to protect it. But you would see it >gone for such a silly reason. > Being photographed does you no harm. The publication of the photograph does >you no harm. Such litigious, selfish attitudes will be the downfall of us all. Just a second, here. The right to privacy AND the right to free speech are equal rights; privacy isn't subordinate to free speech. And harm is a subjective factor, not a universal: I am the only one who can judge how deeply an intrusion into my privacy harms me, not you, not the government. To concede the right to assess "harm" to the government is as silly as granting them the power to decide what guns I may own and to pass judgement on my reasons for owning them. The enquiry shouldn't be directed at 'privacy' versus 'free speech'. Rather, the proper enquiry is whether we surrender our right to privacy when we stick our ugly snouts into a public venue and, on this point, I believe we do surrender any residual claim to privacy. Libertas floreat, guys! Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!