Article
15- The Right to Privacy
“1. The right
to privacy, unless it can be shown to directly and obviously harm
others or affect national security, shall not be abridged in any way.
Private individuals shall not have their private lives divulged in
any form without their consent unless they commit felonies, or
failure to divulge such information can be shown to affect or harm
others in a direct and obvious way.”
A mix of
technology, commercial greed, and government intrusions threaten
individual privacy in unprecedented ways. Information gathered online
is routinely bought and sold without a person even knowing about it.
Using the excuse of terrorism, the government monitors billions of
emails and phone calls. The media is consumed with gossip far more
than journalism, leading to a nation where most know celebrity
affairs in detail but cannot name recent Supreme Court decisions that
affect their lives far more.
A government cannot
un-invent technology. But a government can prevent disclosure, and
punish it by law, or allow lawsuits to make such revelations
unprofitable. Government and big business both too often divulge
private lives because there are no consequences for doing so. The
standards under which private information could be revealed must be
high, and failing to do so must somehow be shown to cause harm. An
examples of allowing public disclosure could include sex offenders
being on public registries, while a contrary example might be
disclosing someone as a closeted gay might threaten their life if
they live in a reactionary area, whether Saudi Arabia or South
Carolina.
The Supreme Court
ruled decades ago there is an implied right to privacy in the
Constitution, leading to the legalizing of abortion. The courts have
repeatedly upheld this, even while a minority has successfully passed
hundreds of restrictions locally. This proposed article will make the
right to privacy explicit, guaranteeing abortion rights. The
anti-abortion lobby should learn the best way to limit abortion is to
make it unneeded, by making access to and understanding of birth
control universal. Even more, building privacy rights directly into
the constitution can guard against the many other intrusions we
increasingly see.
“2. Libel,
slander, or defamation of public figures is subject to the same
punishments and standards as for private individuals.”
Currently it is
almost impossible to defame a public figure. Thus it is perfectly
legal to seriously claim Obama is a reptilian alien space overlord, a
homosexual prostitute, secretly the son of a Black Panther, or of
course the vicious open bigotry of the birth certificate/secret
Muslim hysteria. On the other side of the aisle, an industry of
deluded people using bad science claim GW Bush ordered or allowed the
murder of 3,000 people on September 11, trying to change an
enormously incompetent president into a traitorous mass killer.
The effect of
allowing such defamation is toxic to a democracy. Enormous energy has
to be devoted to refuting such idiocies, and perhaps a third of the
members of both parties adhere to such craziness. (To be fair, few
Democratic leaders pander to or promote such claims, while numerous
Republican ones do.)
Entire political
movements are diverted, distracted, and ruined. The energy spent
trying to prove the loony conspiracy claiming GW Bush carried out or
allowed 9-11 could have actually done something useful, like stop two
ruinous wars. The effort spent on one theory on Obama after another,
each more grotesque or hate filled than the one before, could have
prevented the GOP from getting locked into a self-destructive cycle
based on the futile bigoted anger of a dying demographic.
Much of such
defamation is driven by partisan ideology or outright bigotry. But
much is also driven by the profit motive catering to ideologues,
ignorance, and lurid interest. Ending the profitability of
defamation can dramatically reduce it, and produce a far less
poisonous atmosphere for public debate.
“3. Private
information on public figures cannot be divulged without their
consent unless it can be shown to serve the public interest, or if
their private lives contradict their public opinions and actions.”
The Lewinsky
so called scandal (pick your silly name, Zippergate, Forni-gate,
etc.) was not unique. Bouts of outrage over sexual morality, much of
them feigned, go very far back. In the election of 1800, supporters
of both candidates invented stories of Jefferson and John Adams
consorting with prostitutes. Jefferson's relationship with his slave
Sally Hemmings, with her bearing him eight children, later became an
issue, one devastating to the future of America for the next half
century.
Most Americans do
not realize that Jefferson was the strongest American anti-slavery
voice of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. He worked
steadily to abolish the slave trade for fully half his life. As a
colonial legislator, he was able to pass a law limiting the slave
trade in Virginia. In the earliest years of the new United States, he
was the one most responsible for barring slavery in future northern
states with the Northwest Ordinance. As president, he successfully
barred the entire overseas slave trade to the US. Hundreds of
thousands of Africans did not perish in the Atlantic slave trade to
the US because of Jefferson.
But after
Jefferson's relationship to Hemmings was exposed, he completely
reversed himself on slavery. Jefferson never spoke out strongly
against slavery again. He even sent military and financial aid to
Haiti's slave owners and led efforts to isolate Haiti after slaves
successfully revolted and overthrew their masters. Such was the
destructive effects of spying into a public figure's private life.
One can also point to a more recent example. Congressman Kevin
McCarthy was forced to withdraw from being the next House Speaker
because of outright blackmail, threats to reveal an alleged affair.
One of the few good
things to come out of the Lewinsky noise was that it showed
conclusively the public mostly does not care about politicians'
sex lives. Clinton actually came out of the affair more popular than
ever, and Republicans suffered great losses in the next election
for pandering to the pretended puritanical morality of a hypocritical
small group. Only a quarter of the nation favored the impeachment,
which to the amazement of the rest of the world succeeded.
We as a nation
don't care about the private lives of politicians, in the sense that
it affects most of our votes or raises or lowers our opinion of said
politicians. Some of us only care about what politicians do below the
waist in the same sense we do about celebrities, on the level of
gossipy interest and amusement. But none of us really need to know.
The only instance
in which the private life of a public figure should matter is if it
is shown to contradict their public stance. If an anti-gay rights
politician is a closeted homosexual, that is relevant. If a
politician has a straight affair with a consenting adult, that is
irrelevant. Only if there is a crime involved, or a conflict of
interest such as the person being a lobbyist, should their private
life matter. Their privacy should not end simply because they are
in public office. No one's privacy should be abridged unless doing so
directly and obviously harms the nation and society.
The standard for
public revelation for public figures must be high and strictly
defined. One must be able to show both direct harm to the public,
such as a private relationship being with a lobbyist on issues the
politician must vote on. The harm must also be obvious, with no
extended or vague claims, such as that breaking the marriage vows
make a politician less trustworthy.
Other public
figures such as celebrities, and especially those who simply have the
misfortune to be related to the famous, should not have their privacy
invaded. (I hasten to point out, obviously many celebrities put
themselves on display for publicity's sake, and this proposal does
not apply to them since they voluntarily disclose their once private
lives.) When media invade the lives of young and even underage
relations of celebrities and politicians, clearly it has gone too
far.
All clauses of this
proposed article argue that journalism should actually be journalism
rather than gossip mongering, that government intrusions should end
at the front doors of private homes, and that businesses and
individuals who invade another's privacy will face lawsuits or even
jail time. Courts have previously argued for “the right to be left
alone.” This proposal seeks to make that a reality.