Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!spool.mu.edu!uunet!abvax!iccgcc!herrickd
From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Information Control
Message-ID: <4058.27f353f9@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 29 Mar 91 19:49:29 GMT
References: <GUEST.91Mar27044531@geech.ai.mit.edu> <1991Mar27.183256.8047@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu>
Lines: 13

In article <1991Mar27.183256.8047@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu>, minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes:
> 
> Uhmmm. Uhmmm. I don't want to panic or anything, but the Supreme Court
> *has* acknowledged a fundamental right to privacy. Should those who

Excuse me, but what the Supreme Court did was create a "right to
privacy" to use as a cover for killing unborn babies.

They did not acknowledge a right to privacy that conforms to
ordinary understandings of the words.

dan herrick
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com