It is vital to social conservatives to deny any kind of right to privacy, especially as presented in the language of Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
So how can I have the right to be secure about my “person[], house[], papers, and effects” if I don’t have an implicit right to privacy? As far as I can tell, the two positions are synonymous, one simply being a more abstract assertion of the other.
2 Comments
Why is it vital to social conservatives to deny the right to privacy?
What is a social conservative in this context?
The way I read the passage you quoted, the right to security means the right to security from seizure and (oppressive) regulation.
To the extent that I share information with other people and government entity, whether by explicitly providing that information or by broadcasting it through my typical activities, that information is no longer truly private to me, and I don’t see that I have any right (or reasonable capability) to control its spread or use by others.
For example: The technology is fast approaching that will allow my neighbor to set up a microphone in his front yard that will pick up every little sound I make inside my own home.
He’s not invading my privacy; rather, I’m broadcasting my activities to the world, and the world is now capable of receiving that broadcast.
Another example: in a small village on a remote tropical island, every villager might now in excruciating and embarassing detail the personal habits and activities of every other villager. This being the natural state of affairs, it never occurs to the villagers that they might have some right to privacy–the idea would strike them as both unworkable and unfavorable to open dealings and cooperation towards communal peace and harmony
I think privacy is an illusion, not a right. When we have it, it’s convenient to us as a way to hide our shame. When we don’t have it, we haven’t lost an inalienable right.
I personally believe there is a “right of privacy”, but the big problem is what that means.
For a lot of lefties, what’s covered by the “right of privacy” covers a lot more ground than what I — and I suspect also you — would expect it to.
For instance, some lefties think that abortion is covered by the “right of privacy” of the woman (or girl) involved. Irrespective of whether you think abortion should be legal (I do) that’s quite a stretch in my opinion.
Others have tried to contend that the “right of privacy” means that gays have a right to legal marriage. Again, whatever you think about that issue (I support gay marriage) that argument doesn’t really make much sense.
That’s why conservatives generally oppose judicial creation of a generic “right of privacy”; it’s a leftist trojan horse. Much better to have a series of specific rights, like “being secure in your person, house, papers, and effects” which are much less ambiguous and more difficult to construe broadly.