Except for that durned librul free press.

Except when it comes to grieving parents or what people do in their bedroom and "that durned librul free press" thinks it is ok to publish it in the paper. Yea, that over steps the line for me. :D

You are probably one of those guys who support protests at soldiers funnerals.

So you're for a limited, restricted freedom of the press.

Congratulations, so is Fidel Castro.

Ad hominem: For when you absolutely, positively have no argument whatsoever.

Why do you want to get into what grieving parents do and post it in the press? What is your motivation?

My motivation? The preservation of the free press.

That even applies to - especially applies to - vultures. There is no need to protect popular reporting.

You're either for freedom, or you're not. It really just comes down to that. Liberty ain't always pretty, get a helmet.

Why don't you support a right to privacy for greiving parents?

Because, last I checked, the right to privacy protects you from government intrusion, not from reporting. And the free press is the free press. It wins...no matter how much it might offend you and I.

Your argument is like listening to shrieking liberals complain when people bash Jesse Jackson for saying something stupid..."What about his free speech?", when the government did nothing to shut him up.

I am not talking about the government. There is not really a right to privacy in the Constitution. I am talking about your lack of humanity for greiving parents and your desire to drag their grief to the papers. Why do you support that?

The constitution trumps your sense of decency. Hell, it trumps your life, come to think of it.

There absolutely is. Amendment IV is pretty clear...and every SCOTUS decision in history has affirmed a reasonable expectation of privacy based on it.

Humanity has nothing to do with the constitution, or rights. Even that fucktard Fred Phelps has the right to do what he does. Does that piss you off? It should. Does that mean we can stop him? Absolutely not. Once you abandon the rule of law to react emotionally to any given situation, then all of your rights revert to mere privilege.

Either you support liberty and the constitution, or you don't. There is no halfway.

Actually it is not clear whether or not the Constitution gives you a right to privacy. It appears that only in a few cases has that been affirmed.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ofprivacy.html

I just don't understand why you think it is ok for the press to come into your private life and then publish that information in the news. You can't have it both ways.

Meh. Where it matters (a court of law), privacy is considered a right.

This is why it's almost impossible to get hostile testimony from a spouse admitted into a criminal trial.

This is why warrants are required to breach your right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

In fact, privacy and property are the only two reasons for the amendment.

Meh. I hang my hat on a documented source from a law school over a bunch of 1's and 0's posted by some dude on the internet hiding behind a bunch of letters who thinks he knows what he is talking about.

So you DON'T think a warrant is necessary to breach your privacy?

And there's no need to be a little bitch about the whole thing, you know.

No, I just trust the source of a documented well known law university for the opinion of Privacy as an issue of Constitutional protection over yours.

Or you could, you know, actually READ the constitution.