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!XEROX.COM!hoffman.es
From: hoffman.es@XEROX.COM
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Re: Privacy Rights Amendment
Message-ID: <12229551286.51.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Sat, 9-Aug-86 20:51:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: RED.12229551286.51.MCGREW
Posted: Sat Aug  9 20:51:37 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Aug-86 03:42:25 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: hoffman.es@xerox.com
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 52
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


   From: Keith Lynch
   
   My point was that someone could argue that if you catch
   AIDS there is a danger of spreading it to non-consenting 
   persons.... witness the recent ruling that employers can 
   fire AIDS victims on the grounds that they are contagious.

Exactly what type of law pertaining to this do you foresee, and how
does any proposed privacy amendment pertain to it?  You've already
vehemently defended an employer's right to fire anyone for any reason
whatsoever, and, while not completely agreeing with that, I've already
conceded that hiring and firing do not fall under any privacy rights
amendment.

   [About porn being a danger:] What [Meese Commission] says goes.
   What you and I say doesn't go.  That is how it works.

Wrong.  That commission's report has utterly no effect.  Legislation
is required to put it to work, and THAT is what my amendment would, I
think, prohibit.

   The annoyance [of overly loud music and spotlights] is obvious
   to me.  The danger is not.  How does one distinguish between the
   two?

To be determined in the courts.  Personally, I see no great problem
convincing judges and juries that ear-splitting music and
sleep-shattering spotlights are a "clear and present danger" to my
health, and I don't think I could convincingly say the same about
viewing a house painted purple with pink polka-dots.

   Don't get me wrong, I like your amendment.  But I think it 
   needs work. 
   
I agree.

   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?

Good questions.  I need to think about that one. 

   Or wiretapping, reading other people's mail, etc.

I tend to think wiretapping and reading other people's mail would
remain generally illegal under the Fourth Amendment (forbidding
unreasonable search and seizure).

        -- Rodney Hoffman

-------