The most common stock response you get from anyone who hears of a policy that directly or indirectly invades their privacy is “I’ve got nothing to hide”.
First let’s analyse the statement closely. Its first assumption is that anybody who claims their right to privacy clearly has something to hide. This is not convincing when thought through for a second – bringing the issue to the home level, when you seek privacy for your toilet duties and when you wish to be intimate with your partner, are you necessarily ‘hiding’ something? It is not any great crime to partake in, what are after all, common natural processes as a human being. But it is part of social convention to seek privacy before carrying out these actions. Similarly, you may wish to keep a conversation secret from colleagues or family members simply because the issue is sensitive. The point being that there are numerous acts you can make that you might want to stay in privacy, but are not necessarily immoral acts.
But on what basis are you building your moral framework? From the government’s point of view, what is ‘wrong’ is what is illegal, and it may be the case that you are doing nothing illegal. However, what use is basing your moral compass on the law? The law is subject, through democracy or not, to a person or a group of person’s opinions that are subject to whim and prejudice as everyone else. Chances are that you disagree with at least one law currently on the books. Do you change your moral compass on this issue simply because ‘it’s the law’? Many a democratic society has produced unjust laws.
But let’s say, for the sake of argument, you agree with every law on the books, and you trust government as benign and looking out for the people’s best interests – this particular government that happens to be in power won’t last forever. Chances are, at some time or another, a government will be elected whose policies you do not like, and that unjust power will be in their hands. Is that power only immoral now that a tyrant is in charge? The truth is that the moral value of that power has not changed, only the individual at the wheel.
You do indeed have the right to accept the invasion of your privacy by an outside entity, confident that you have nothing to hide, but how exactly does this give you the right to impose that invasion on everyone else?
You're saying there's a difference between privacy and secrecy, and the way the "Law" handles each. Correct?
At any rate, yes, we should be able to have personal privacy. Yes, without being accused of hiding something. Unless of course there's evidence that there's something illegal going on.
That's funny. I thought you were a Conservative? Since when the hell have you ever cared about privacy?
Real conservatives support privacy. Fake conservatives don't. It's pretty simple.
What do you think you're doing?! What has this statement got to do with the post?
But, then what is illegal is not always "wrong", or more pertinently, grounds for invasion of privacy.
Prostitution, distilling alcohol, setting up a lemonaid stand without (gasp!) proper permits, using drugs, making a bomb. Giving your child a small glass of wine, doing your own home repairs, gambling outside the church or state lotteries. The list of victimless crimes is nearly endless.
All are illegal, but in and of themselves not "wrong" somehow.
Some of these do have potential victims but yes you're point is correct, I would add drug possession laws and polygamy laws (not to mention same sex marriage laws) to the list.
Ummm..........you can't legitimately add same sex marriage laws to that.
You can maybe at same sex to it. But that (in America at least) has already been in effect for years and years and years. No gay bars are raided anymore just because they're "gay bars", no gays' homes are raided because they're practicing same sex inside those buildings, no one is arrested for kissing someone of the same sex (even though they should be if they're doing so in public!), no law says arrest and kill someone who's gay.
Same sex "marriage" is different. That's a move beyond personal privacy. That's a move of forcing all of America to condone homosexual activity & legitimatize it over and above what marriage is. That affects the rights of other people.
Nobody can force anybody to condone any activity, that's still your choice.
Good evening Ms. Durham.
Your statement confuses me. Please list which of my rights are effected by a marriage between two other same gender adults.
The right to free speech without being slandered as a bigot, for starters.
Can you not wrap your mind around that? You should be able to. Because that's the "little" tag-along consequence of legitimatizing gay "marriage". Anyone who violates the "LAW" by speaking out against gay marriage is automatically labeled a bigot, is mocked, verbally or physically abused. We already see the consequences of it in these forums, in other forums, in cyberspace and in literal space. We saw it in that beauty contest (I don't remember exactly which one now....but will find it...) where that gay judge mocked and insulted and slandered the contestant simply because she spoke as a conservative and Christian about homosexuality. We see it everywhere already, and gay marriage isn't even legal everywhere.
I for one have no intention of cowing down to the bigotry and bullying of gay activists.
What I do have intentions of doing are exactly what I've always done-------feel compassion for the dilemma of people who struggle with gay temptations, but to not enable them to continue to wallow in their own pit of self-pity and rebellion, to tell them that they're in the same boat as any other person who struggles with any addiction or problem, and that there is HOPE for repentance and forgiveness and to live a decent life with productive, peaceful results as much as anyone else has that opportunity.
If you want to be a scapegoat for liberal selfishness and political power, go ahead; if you want to be under the thumb of people who don't give a whit about common human dignity and decency, go ahead. If you want to appease people who will only be your friends if you give them whatever indecent rights they want, go ahead. If you want to buy into the second-biggest lie of the century (the first-biggest being that an unborn child isn't a child), if you want to lay down passively while the liberal agenda walks all over you and the rest of American society, go ahead. But I will not.
No one is taking away your right to be a homophobe or a bigot, just as no one can take away anyone's right to call you one, once same sex marriage passes (as it has in like 8 states) people will still be able to be hateful and excersize Christian prejudice all they like.
There is no law against any of that.
You lose zero rights, simple as that.
Don't even try to put me on the defensive.
It's you who is saying bigoted phobic offensive things about Christians and anyone who doesn't agree with homosexual marriage.
Own it, because it's coming from your words, not mine.
And you may THINK you have a right to call me (or anyone who speaks as I do, which is a truthful and non-aggressive way) a bigot and a homophobe, but you are wrong, and you're insulting and you're speaking slander.
Nope this is free speech exactly the thing you won't lose.
Nope, it's slander, exactly the thing you should have the common decency to stop directing at me, mister.
Nope slander has to be directed at a person who has a public profile by their real name in an intentional attempt to lie to damage their reputation.
You are not a public figure, I don't know who you really are and I have not told a single lie.
So defintionally not slander, free speech.
Hogwash on all counts. I use my real name, this is a "public" profile, and you intentionally lied to try to damage my name, reputation, and anything you could damage, by saying I have the right to be a homophobe and a bigot, and to be hateful and exercise Christian prejudice.
And even if I didn't use my real name, it wouldn't matter. Just like you don't use your real name apparently.
Don't slander and insult me anymore Josak.
Oh, he absolutely DOES have the right to call you a bigot.
That's free speech baby
To slander or libel there needs to be 1. A provable lie and 2. Damages. It isn't criminal, it's civil. So prove in a jury that 1. He was lying and 2. It cost you money.
Let me help you out, you seem confused as to what Slander and Libel are.
Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.
To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
Thank you for your cut and paste googled definition...
While it was more in-depth than mine-largely because IDG too big of a F about this conversation... not sure it contradicts my explanation...
I'm sure you're going to argue some sort of ignorance by omission, but really it's just apathy. I could have written pages on it I guess... but somehow I didn't see the purpose. I knew someone would come along who was compelled to cut and paste something from wiki.
Unless you want to argue that you can file a civil suit with no actual financial damages. Which should be fun to watch.
First of all, Melissa, you should consider the definition(s) of "a right". And slander. Neither of those have to include the subject of money, especially when you consider the definitions of that first word (right). I think it was you who first intimated the idea of legalities. You jumped to the conclusion that this involved the notion of suing in Court. I did neither.
So, just give the whole thing a rest, because you don't even know what you're talking about in this case.
No... you bought up slander.
You have no rights being violated. Being called a homophobic violates none of your rights. You being upset about it means nothing, legally or constitutionally.
You get to say what you like, everyone else gets to say it too. If people responding to you hurts your feelings... big deal. You're sensitivities aren't protected by the Constitution.
I know the definition of a right quite well. You don't have the right to not have people disagree with you because it makes you feel bad.
And yes, a civil tort requires financial damages. You can't sue for an apology.
Two points, first it does not require a monetary damage as you stated. And secondly there are four elements not two as you suggested. I'm sorry that you didn't know that which is why I corrected your post.
Whether you care or not is no reason not to be accurate.
Yes dear. Do any of those extra points apply to the situation?
But hey, good job! It's always good to provide 3 extra paragraphs of completely unnecessary and irrelevant information. Aren't you glad you have Wiki so you don't actually have to type it yourself?
What you are missing is what happens when you try to file a lawsuit for libel without damages. Maybe you should Google that. Here's a clue... there are rules for specific kinds of tort actions and there are rules for tort actions in general...
It seems you don't like to be corrected. I didn't say that she had a case I just corrected your completely wrong definition.
Wikipedia wasn't my source but you might try it next time.
If you think so sparky.
Don't need wiki... don't need Google for this one either...
I don't mind being corrected, when I'm wrong. I wasn't wrong. You posted additional, unnecessary information. Good job.
There are literally millions of books on civil law out there. I didn't feel the need to explain all of them in their entirety either.
She still doesn't get it.
Which is why I've stopped trying to point out the facts to her.
It's a civil offense so you have to have a monetary claim, you don't and so there is nothing wrong with it.
Additionally I told no lie, i called a bigot and by the definition of the word that is what you are.
Good luck with that slander case
Umm....nope, I'm not.
You're conveniently leaving out some words in the definition.
It does, however, seem to fit you. From the content and context of your words, you have a "blind" hatred of, and intentions to insult, anyone who defends traditional marriage, especially Christians.
And I didn't mention anything about a legal slander case. Slander is slander, whether it's dealt with in conversation or personally, or whether it's taken to a Court of Law. But indeed, if I were the type to go that route, you would indeed lose. Be glad I'm not in that frame of mind.
No please go ahead it would be hilarious to see the judge laugh in your face.
Are you saying she has to show how she was affected monetarily? If so then you are completely wrong. If you are saying she needs to affix a dollar amount to the suit then ok, how much is a reputation worth?
No, he's not.
You are working on your own incomplete definition... Wiki sucks like that.
The best, very very best, you can pull out would be nominal damages. Which are exceedingly rare and not even recognized in most states. Punitive damages don't happen on libel/slander cases.
She would also have to prove that he lied.
Good luck with that.
You really need to look up the legal definition of defamation... it's the word that your wiki copied example hinges on.
Here: I'll even help (From Wiki)
Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed.
So he can call her a homophobe until his tongue turns black and falls off. No defamation.
In addition, her reputation wouldn't be damaged at all, as the statement "homophobe" aligns with her reputation in the forum that he made the comment.
Whatever you say, it really isn't important to me, you were corrected and I have moved on.
I sleep fine, you seem a little out of sorts though.
Nope, just trolling you for entertainment. I have real things to actually care about it life.
You're the one following me from thread to thread to start an argument.
Ok so you were just nitpicking for the sake of it cool.
Nope, he got his feeling hurts in an argument about constitutionality of dress codes in a different thread. He's trying to settle some sort of score.
Thank you, Ms. Durham, for your lengthy reply.
Surely you jest. My right of free speech would not be effected if two same gender people should marry and neither would yours. In your post you clearly stated “same sex marriage…affects the rights of other people.”
Is it possible after making this claim that you can list which of my (I am other people) legal rights are effected by a marriage between two other same gender adults? You do not have to list them all, just one or two will be okay. If you can not list any rights effected by a same sex marriage of two other people, its okay to say that too.
Thank you, Ms. Durham, for considering my request.
Josak's post above is an example of my free speech rights already being overrun. So, even though you're trying to be nice apparently, and as much as I appreciate that, I'm not gonna keep on having to defend MY stance when it's perfectly obvious that HIS stance is the one that's harrassing and rude and slanderous and falsely accusatory.
Below is an ever-increasingly-more-common scenario that happens when conservatives and/or Christians speak out for traditional marriage. Carrie Prejean wasn't rude, nor was she aggressive, nor was she in any way slanderous. She simply answered Perez Hilton's question since he was a judge in the contest. What did she get for that---------she got slandered, insulted, cursed. It's another example of how bullying and mean and tyrannical so many liberal activists are. So, yeah, it's totally a stripping-away of conservatives' right to free speech. Because I will note that I wasn't slandersous nor cursing nor insulting either. But I sure will call a person out when they've made me the target of their own slanderous bigotry.
"Selling is legal. *Frak*ing is legal. Why isn't selling *frak*ing legal?!"
- George Carlin
The lemonade stand thing is crazy, yeah.
But I'm wondering if maybe there isn't some reason behind that too.........maybe health reasons.......
There's also a law, from what I've heard, that ya can only have so many yard sales per year, and laws saying you can't sell garden produce from your yard, etc........
Some things are really an invasion of privacy and rights. Some aren't as evident as others............
I'm sure the soft-beverages lobby were so concerned about public health when they pushed for the law
Innersmiff, I'm massively late to the discussion as usual, so apologies- but all of the other discussions aside, IMHO, it's not about what we have to hide or otherwise, but trusting the authorities to have the integrity to only invade privacy when it is believed that an offence has been, or may be, committed.
All those people who say "I have nothing to hide" are probably telling the truth- I'd have said the same at one time. But they are also assuming that the authorities would only want to invade the privacy of criminals, when in fact this is often not the case. They want to invade the privacy of dissenters . This is so politically motivated- stasi like if you ask me!
It has little to do with criminality either, when dissenting becomes a criminal offence to the state.
On average, we all break around 3 laws a day - is this reason enough to enact a police state upon us? Obviously not. We need to be making a distinction between just and unjust laws.
Oh yeah, I didn't use wikipedia. That may be where your mistakes stem from.
by Felixedet20004 years ago
What do you think about the promotion of same sex marriage?The adoption of this pattern of marriage is also a source of concerns to various stake holders in the religious and political circles.What is you say in all...
by mohamedhmm7 years ago
I believe we are as human kind we should defend our human rights and our wellness from any harmful act such as same sex; so, let's come together to protect our human rights and keep our society safe for us and next...
by Innuentendre4 years ago
If incest laws were created to prevent inbreeding and same sex couples are at no risk of doing so, should same sex marriage laws supersede incest laws?
by Nicola Thompson3 years ago
Just after Same-Sex marriage was legalized in California - It's been immediately asked to be "intervened by the court". Should it be? After all, isn't that how a democracy works?
by mdawson177 years ago
In my own personal belief I do not think that the marriage of the same sex was ever blessed by God. I am curious what my fellow hubbers response would be if they were asked if same sex marriage was ok in the eyes of God?
by Susan Reid5 years ago
This morning seems to be full of good news for the more tolerant among us.Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in California, has been overturned by a federal appeals panel. Next stop (perhaps) SCOTUS.For...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.