Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu From: kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Privacy Rights Amendment Message-ID: <12229550913.51.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Sat, 9-Aug-86 20:49:35 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12229550913.51.MCGREW Posted: Sat Aug 9 20:49:35 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Aug-86 03:42:06 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 88 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu From: Hoffman.es@Xerox.COM I had proposed a trial wording for a privacy amendment: The United States and no state shall make any law pertaining to private activities of informed, consenting persons. Activities are deemed private unless involving a clear and present danger to uninformed or non-consenting others. ... if both parties ... are informed ... about AIDS and consent anyway, no law could touch them. My point was that someone could argue that if you catch AIDS there is a danger of spreading it to non-consenting persons. This danger might be remote, but the government clearly doesn't think so, witness the recent ruling that employers can fire AIDS victims on the grounds that they are contagious. Is increased taxation a clear and present danger to the taxpayers? I would claim that it is. So you agree that no taxpayer money should be used to treat AIDS victims or to find a cure or a vaccine? ... I think any anti-porn laws should be outlawed by the First Amendment. (Yes, I know the courts think otherwise.) I think any anti-porn laws are already illegal under the First Amendment. I don't know why the government doesn't see this. I don't know why they think it is even up to them to evaluate the effects of the material. It is protected by the First Amendment even if everyone who ever glances at it turns into a mass murderer. In any case, I definitely had such things in mind when I used the "clear and present danger" phrase. I don't think the Meese commission showed any such danger. They SAID there is a danger, but they couldn't and can't back it up. Well, all they have to do is say it. What they say goes. What you and I say doesn't go. That is how it works. That is what I want to change. ... Now if they think I'm insane, that's a separate issue to be tried. Is it? Is insanity illegal? I think a person should be found incompetent only if they committed a crime. And then only for at most the duration of the maximum sentence for that crime. I am horrified at the recent ruling that declared someone incompetent because he loaned money to the LaRouche people. Let me emphasize that I am no fan of that crackpot LaRouche, but freedom of expression and of political belief is inalienable. If people can have their freedom taken away for supporting an unpopular cause, in what sense were they ever free? Is this what this country has come to? Also, do you think people should be allowed to play very loud music outdoors at 2 am? ... What about shining spotlights into people's windows at night? ... I think overly loud music forced upon me (at any time) IS a clear danger to me. ... Same about a spotlight. The annoyance is obvious to me. The danger is not. How does one distinguish between the two? It can't be left up to the annoyed person to decide. What if someone claims they are endangered by the sight of your (painted purple with pink polka-dots) house? This may be a legitimate annoyance, but is it literally a danger? No. But neither is a spotlight. Don't get me wrong, I like your amendment. But I think it needs work. Different people see different things in it. Personally, for instance, I am greatly bothered by tobacco smoke and I think that smoking around non-consenting persons should be illegal. Does your amendment support me in this? It seems to. But I would bet that a smoker would interpret it quite differently. Any amendment however well intentioned and no matter how well written can be misinterpreted. Look at the ruins of the Second Amendment. Look at the anti-porn laws, which exist despite porn clearly being just as protected by the First Amendment as it would be by your amendment. An amendment can only be a guideline. What is needed is common sense on the part of the government. Unfortunately, that seems to be in extremely short supply. As for a peeping tom, you're right, there could be no laws against one; what's the problem? Or against wiretapping, reading other people's mail, etc. A strange consequence of a 'privacy rights amendment'! ...Keith -------