Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!cyberoid From: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Privacy of personal data (was Re: Personal Privacy Violations) Message-ID: <14580@milton.u.washington.edu> Date: 17 Jan 91 02:25:23 GMT References: <1991Jan12.180934.1314@looking.on.ca> <5825@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Lines: 20 Sorry, Steve, your opinion doesn't jive with the Supreme Court's, that's all. The Justices have found that the Preamble, First and Fourth Amendments, and other declarations, taken as a whole, give a presumed "privacy right." And in state constitutions where a privacy right explicitly is stated, it is in a superordinate position to the press remarks. You should note that there is no "press right" state in the Bill or Rights or anywhere else. The press does not have the right to publish anything it likes; the libel laws, for one thing, are evidence that this is not the case. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution merely prohibits government from interfering with publication by the press, not individuals who may be harmed by press coverage. It's a matter for juries and the courts whether the individual or the publisher prevails. In the California Constitution, at least, the press's "right" is balanced in the same section with description of those things that can trigger a libel suit. Bob Jacobson