Privacy Rights/Conflicts with other Rights/Other fundamental - Revision history

Jkochan1 at 12:29, 20 March 2023

2023-03-20T12:29:48Z

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 Privacy is also put aside when considering public security and health (Mills, [[Probable year:: 2008]],  227). In the United States, this lack of priority became clear with the [[Probable year:: 1978]]  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and PATRIOT Act of [[Probable year:: 2001]],  which both expanded the ability of the FBI to have access to information on individuals that may or may not be a threat to the nation’s security. Many courts have upheld acts that place public security over personal privacy rights. To use an example less severe than terrorism, such is the case with the release of sex offenders (Mills, [[Probable year:: 2008]],  224). While it hurts one’s reputation to have their name released in connection with this crime, it protects the greater community and their neighbors by alerting them.
-Resources
+References:
-Branzburg v. Hayes. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 12, [[Probable year:: 2021]],  from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year:: 1971]]/ 70-85
+Branzburg v. Hayes. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 12, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-85
 }}

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-12-28T22:12:42Z

transformed

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-11-25T19:55:12Z

transformed

New page

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=Conflicts with other Rights
|question=Other fundamental
|questionHeading=Are there other specific fundamental rights that tend to conflict with this right? Can you identify specific examples of this?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=As Warren & Brandeis suggest in The Right to Privacy ([[Probable year::1890]]) , the right to privacy directly conflicts with freedom of the press and speech. They wanted to protect people from writings beyond what defamation and publishing law covered. However, by proposing privacy protections that extended beyond these laws, they were inherently limiting what could be published. While this limitation was intentional, it was sure to be contentious as the First Amendment had been in place and protected for nearly 100 years and privacy rights were not prominent in any part of the world before this time. The First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (US Constitution, [[Probable year::1787]], Amd. 1).

The United States Supreme Court Cases offer plenty of examples of press and privacy rights conflicting, as “the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment do not require total abrogation of the right to privacy” (Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., [[Probable year::1971]]) . In some cases, privacy prevails, in others, the First Amendment. One of the cases was New York Times Company v. United States ([[Probable year::1971]]) in which the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers but the Nixon administration argued that those should be kept private for national security concerns. In a 6-3 decision, the Court claimed that these were not to be considered private or secure and that the freedom of the press prevailed (NYT v. US, n.d.). Also in [[Probable year::1971]], the Court ordered Branzburg to reveal his sources to a grand jury, despite the sources explicitly asking to not be revealed in Bransburg v. Hayes. Had secrecy been maintained, the press would have more rights than individuals during the grand jury (Branzburg v. Hayes, n.d.). Additionally, other cases such as Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn ([[Probable year::1975]]) and Florida Star v. BJF ([[Probable year::1989]]) held that freedom of the press overtakes privacy rights when the information is lawfully and publicly available. Cohen v. Cowles Media Company ([[Probable year::1991]]) granted privacy to press informants if they had been promised confidentiality with promissory estoppel because the principle applies generally not just to the press (Cohen v. Cowles Media Company, n.d.). The contrast of Branzburg and Cohen shows how interpretive and circumstantial privacy rights are, while NYT v. NASA ([[Probable year::1991]]) reveals that privacy rights are dependent on the media used to publish the information. In this instance, the US District Court for the District of Columbia allowed for transcripts of the Challenger astronauts’ last words to be published by the Times, but not the voice recordings (Mills, [[Probable year::2008]], 36).

Privacy rights also conflict with the right to information. The government recognized this right with the Freedom of Information Act in [[Probable year::1966]] (FOIA). This act granted anyone the ability to request access to federal agency records but not the records of private companies. The goal of having public records is to keep the government accountable, but this risks people’s privacy based on the nature of the information agencies collect (Mills, [[Probable year::2008]], 50). However, nine exemptions and three exclusions in FOIA limit access to these records. The exclusions are narrow and related to law enforcement and ongoing intelligence investigations and are unaffected by FOIA. The exemptions authorize government agencies to withhold information from those requesting it (Freedom of Information Act, n.d). Luckily, the exceptions and exemptions and the Privacy Act of [[Probable year::1974]] considered the right of privacy and aimed to prevent the collision of these rights (Mills, [[Probable year::2008]], 51).

Privacy is also put aside when considering public security and health (Mills, [[Probable year::2008]], 227). In the United States, this lack of priority became clear with the [[Probable year::1978]] Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and PATRIOT Act of [[Probable year::2001]], which both expanded the ability of the FBI to have access to information on individuals that may or may not be a threat to the nation’s security. Many courts have upheld acts that place public security over personal privacy rights. To use an example less severe than terrorism, such is the case with the release of sex offenders (Mills, [[Probable year::2008]], 224). While it hurts one’s reputation to have their name released in connection with this crime, it protects the greater community and their neighbors by alerting them.

Resources

Branzburg v. Hayes. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 12, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year::1971]]/ 70-85
Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc, 4 Cal. 3d 529 (CA Sup. Ct. [[Probable year::1971]]) . https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/4/529.html
Cohen v. Cowles Media Company. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 12, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year::1990]]/ 90-634
Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 15, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year::1974]]/ 73-938
Florida Star v. B. J. F. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 15, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year::1988]]/ 87-329
Freedom of Information Act, The. (n.d.). Department of State. Retrieved Sept. 14, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://foia.state.gov/learn/foia.aspx
Mills, J.L. ([[Probable year::2008]]) . Privacy: The lost right. Oxford University Press.
New York Times Company v. United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 12, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year::1970]]/ [[Probable year::1873]]
U.S. Constitution. ([[Probable year::1787]]) . https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Warren, S. & Brandeis, L. ([[Probable year::1890]], Dec. 15). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review 4(5), 193-220. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-811X%281890[[Probable year::1215]]% 294%3A5%3C193%3ATRTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:12, 28 December 2022
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|questionHeading=Are there other specific fundamental rights that tend to conflict with this right? Can you identify specific examples of this?		\|questionHeading=Are there other specific fundamental rights that tend to conflict with this right? Can you identify specific examples of this?
	\|pageLevel=Question		\|pageLevel=Question
	\|contents=As Warren & Brandeis suggest in The Right to Privacy ([[Probable year::1890]]) , the right to privacy directly conflicts with freedom of the press and speech. They wanted to protect people from writings beyond what defamation and publishing law covered. However, by proposing privacy protections that extended beyond these laws, they were inherently limiting what could be published. While this limitation was intentional, it was sure to be contentious as the First Amendment had been in place and protected for nearly 100 years and privacy rights were not prominent in any part of the world before this time. The First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (US Constitution, [[Probable year::1787]], Amd. 1).		\|contents=As Warren & Brandeis suggest in The Right to Privacy ([[Probable year:: 1890]]) , the right to privacy directly conflicts with freedom of the press and speech. They wanted to protect people from writings beyond what defamation and publishing law covered. However, by proposing privacy protections that extended beyond these laws, they were inherently limiting what could be published. While this limitation was intentional, it was sure to be contentious as the First Amendment had been in place and protected for nearly 100 years and privacy rights were not prominent in any part of the world before this time. The First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (US Constitution, [[Probable year:: 1787]], Amd. 1).

	The United States Supreme Court Cases offer plenty of examples of press and privacy rights conflicting, as “the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment do not require total abrogation of the right to privacy” (Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., [[Probable year::1971]]) . In some cases, privacy prevails, in others, the First Amendment. One of the cases was New York Times Company v. United States ([[Probable year::1971]]) in which the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers but the Nixon administration argued that those should be kept private for national security concerns. In a 6-3 decision, the Court claimed that these were not to be considered private or secure and that the freedom of the press prevailed (NYT v. US, n.d.). Also in [[Probable year::1971]], the Court ordered Branzburg to reveal his sources to a grand jury, despite the sources explicitly asking to not be revealed in Bransburg v. Hayes. Had secrecy been maintained, the press would have more rights than individuals during the grand jury (Branzburg v. Hayes, n.d.). Additionally, other cases such as Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn ([[Probable year::1975]]) and Florida Star v. BJF ([[Probable year::1989]]) held that freedom of the press overtakes privacy rights when the information is lawfully and publicly available. Cohen v. Cowles Media Company ([[Probable year::1991]]) granted privacy to press informants if they had been promised confidentiality with promissory estoppel because the principle applies generally not just to the press (Cohen v. Cowles Media Company, n.d.). The contrast of Branzburg and Cohen shows how interpretive and circumstantial privacy rights are, while NYT v. NASA ([[Probable year::1991]]) reveals that privacy rights are dependent on the media used to publish the information. In this instance, the US District Court for the District of Columbia allowed for transcripts of the Challenger astronauts’ last words to be published by the Times, but not the voice recordings (Mills, [[Probable year::2008]], 36).		The United States Supreme Court Cases offer plenty of examples of press and privacy rights conflicting, as “the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment do not require total abrogation of the right to privacy” (Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., [[Probable year:: 1971]]) . In some cases, privacy prevails, in others, the First Amendment. One of the cases was New York Times Company v. United States ([[Probable year:: 1971]]) in which the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers but the Nixon administration argued that those should be kept private for national security concerns. In a 6-3 decision, the Court claimed that these were not to be considered private or secure and that the freedom of the press prevailed (NYT v. US, n.d.). Also in [[Probable year:: 1971]], the Court ordered Branzburg to reveal his sources to a grand jury, despite the sources explicitly asking to not be revealed in Bransburg v. Hayes. Had secrecy been maintained, the press would have more rights than individuals during the grand jury (Branzburg v. Hayes, n.d.). Additionally, other cases such as Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn ([[Probable year:: 1975]]) and Florida Star v. BJF ([[Probable year:: 1989]]) held that freedom of the press overtakes privacy rights when the information is lawfully and publicly available. Cohen v. Cowles Media Company ([[Probable year:: 1991]]) granted privacy to press informants if they had been promised confidentiality with promissory estoppel because the principle applies generally not just to the press (Cohen v. Cowles Media Company, n.d.). The contrast of Branzburg and Cohen shows how interpretive and circumstantial privacy rights are, while NYT v. NASA ([[Probable year:: 1991]]) reveals that privacy rights are dependent on the media used to publish the information. In this instance, the US District Court for the District of Columbia allowed for transcripts of the Challenger astronauts’ last words to be published by the Times, but not the voice recordings (Mills, [[Probable year:: 2008]], 36).

	Privacy rights also conflict with the right to information. The government recognized this right with the Freedom of Information Act in [[Probable year::1966]] (FOIA). This act granted anyone the ability to request access to federal agency records but not the records of private companies. The goal of having public records is to keep the government accountable, but this risks people’s privacy based on the nature of the information agencies collect (Mills, [[Probable year::2008]], 50). However, nine exemptions and three exclusions in FOIA limit access to these records. The exclusions are narrow and related to law enforcement and ongoing intelligence investigations and are unaffected by FOIA. The exemptions authorize government agencies to withhold information from those requesting it (Freedom of Information Act, n.d). Luckily, the exceptions and exemptions and the Privacy Act of [[Probable year::1974]] considered the right of privacy and aimed to prevent the collision of these rights (Mills, [[Probable year::2008]], 51).		Privacy rights also conflict with the right to information. The government recognized this right with the Freedom of Information Act in [[Probable year:: 1966]] (FOIA). This act granted anyone the ability to request access to federal agency records but not the records of private companies. The goal of having public records is to keep the government accountable, but this risks people’s privacy based on the nature of the information agencies collect (Mills, [[Probable year:: 2008]], 50). However, nine exemptions and three exclusions in FOIA limit access to these records. The exclusions are narrow and related to law enforcement and ongoing intelligence investigations and are unaffected by FOIA. The exemptions authorize government agencies to withhold information from those requesting it (Freedom of Information Act, n.d). Luckily, the exceptions and exemptions and the Privacy Act of [[Probable year:: 1974]] considered the right of privacy and aimed to prevent the collision of these rights (Mills, [[Probable year:: 2008]], 51).

	Privacy is also put aside when considering public security and health (Mills, [[Probable year::2008]], 227). In the United States, this lack of priority became clear with the [[Probable year::1978]] Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and PATRIOT Act of [[Probable year::2001]], which both expanded the ability of the FBI to have access to information on individuals that may or may not be a threat to the nation’s security. Many courts have upheld acts that place public security over personal privacy rights. To use an example less severe than terrorism, such is the case with the release of sex offenders (Mills, [[Probable year::2008]], 224). While it hurts one’s reputation to have their name released in connection with this crime, it protects the greater community and their neighbors by alerting them.		Privacy is also put aside when considering public security and health (Mills, [[Probable year:: 2008]], 227). In the United States, this lack of priority became clear with the [[Probable year:: 1978]] Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and PATRIOT Act of [[Probable year:: 2001]], which both expanded the ability of the FBI to have access to information on individuals that may or may not be a threat to the nation’s security. Many courts have upheld acts that place public security over personal privacy rights. To use an example less severe than terrorism, such is the case with the release of sex offenders (Mills, [[Probable year:: 2008]], 224). While it hurts one’s reputation to have their name released in connection with this crime, it protects the greater community and their neighbors by alerting them.

	Resources		Resources

	Branzburg v. Hayes. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 12, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year::1971]]/ 70-85		Branzburg v. Hayes. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 12, [[Probable year:: 2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year:: 1971]]/ 70-85
	Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc, 4 Cal. 3d 529 (CA Sup. Ct. [[Probable year::1971]]) . https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/4/529.html		Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc, 4 Cal. 3d 529 (CA Sup. Ct. [[Probable year:: 1971]]) . https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/4/529.html
	Cohen v. Cowles Media Company. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 12, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year::1990]]/ 90-634		Cohen v. Cowles Media Company. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 12, [[Probable year:: 2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year:: 1990]]/ 90-634
	Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 15, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year::1974]]/ 73-938		Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 15, [[Probable year:: 2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year:: 1974]]/ 73-938
	Florida Star v. B. J. F. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 15, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year::1988]]/ 87-329		Florida Star v. B. J. F. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 15, [[Probable year:: 2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year:: 1988]]/ 87-329
	Freedom of Information Act, The. (n.d.). Department of State. Retrieved Sept. 14, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://foia.state.gov/learn/foia.aspx		Freedom of Information Act, The. (n.d.). Department of State. Retrieved Sept. 14, [[Probable year:: 2021]], from https://foia.state.gov/learn/foia.aspx
	Mills, J.L. ([[Probable year::2008]]) . Privacy: The lost right. Oxford University Press.		Mills, J.L. ([[Probable year:: 2008]]) . Privacy: The lost right. Oxford University Press.
	New York Times Company v. United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 12, [[Probable year::2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year::1970]]/ [[Probable year::1873]]		New York Times Company v. United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 12, [[Probable year:: 2021]], from https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year:: 1970]]/ [[Probable year:: 1873]]
	U.S. Constitution. ([[Probable year::1787]]) . https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript		U.S. Constitution. ([[Probable year:: 1787]]) . https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
	Warren, S. & Brandeis, L. ([[Probable year::1890]], Dec. 15). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review 4(5), 193-220. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-811X%281890[[Probable year::1215]]% 294%3A5%3C193%3ATRTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C		Warren, S. & Brandeis, L. ([[Probable year:: 1890]], Dec. 15). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review 4(5), 193-220. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-811X%281890[[Probable year:: 1215]]% 294%3A5%3C193%3ATRTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C


	}}		}}