Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon
The point at which it leaves your brain. That's why personal interviews with people's family, friends, and acquaintances are a routine part of background checks for security clearances. Anything you say; or, write can somehow be used against you by anyone possessing knowledge of what was communicated regardless of how it was obtained.
|
That is the obvious privacy issue. And the relevant point (since her sex obviously was irrelevant).
1) You control the release of what you write. 2) What others say about you is only hearsay - their opinion; not yours. 3) Secret recordings are not hearsay and are not controlled by you. These three completely different concepts should be defined by universal rules for privacy ... that do not exist.
Abdul-Jabbar's commentary properly identified a second issue here. We do not condemn someone for violating CA's (reported) privacy laws ... that do not exist in all states or many other nations. The word 'niger' causes so much emotional distress but a fundamental violation of privacy does not?
Obviously what is written and publically released is completely different from private thoughts explored in a private setting. Secret recordings of a person making exploratory statements in an uncontrolled emotional outburst (regardless of whether he believes them or not) should be a major privacy violation. For all we know, one might be practicing in private for a future acting role or to explore someone else’s thought patterns. Recording is a problem only made worse by the many who say no such privacy rights exist in the Constitution.
Instead you were all caught up in a misogyny issue that is irrelevant. You saw misogyny rather than an obvious violation of privacy - which was his obvious point. So yes we agree. Your point was misogyny so that Abdul-Jabbar's obvious privacy complaint was completely ignored.