Internet Privacy

No, it's not a flexible interpretation. It's a common interpretation. The Supreme Court HAS used literal interpretations of the constitution where necessary--but your point is not relevant as to WHY they literally interpret some parts of it. I don't think you took the time to Google a penumbral right because you would have learned that the amendments I listed all refer to privacy of some sort, even if the word "privacy" isn't used. I'll be honest, if you try to argue to me that privacy isn't a right, you may as well take the energy you'd use in writing it here and send a letter to the Supreme Court since they've already established that it's a basic human right.

As for my doctor analogy..you took that down an interesting road. It was applicable to your claim that privacy is not inherent or necessary. That is the point I'm arguing you on, not really whether absolute Internet privacy is necessary. It's obvious hat the Internet will receive some type of regulation some day. Your point about medical conditions is moot. There are medical conditions that some people can have, caused by nature or otherwise, that can be embarrassing if someone you don't know..or someone you do know has free reign over your information because privacy "isn't necessary".

And Aquw, I'm sure if governments were benevolent and wonderful, we'd all have no worry that they would abuse such a privilege. But I'm willing to fight for the right to not to be illegally searched by a government who constantly makes bad choices. I guess that's just me.

:huh:
"It's not a flexible interpretation. It's a common interpretation." That doesn't make any sense at all. So if it's not flexible, what is it? Common doesn't replace flexible. It's still a flexible/loose view of the Constitution. Anyways, I did a little digging into this privacy stuff today (as I'm drowned in finals work and can't think worth crap or find time to think at all). This "penumbral rights" notion arose from the SC case Griswold v. Connecticut (and please don't just say Google it and find it yourself; you're the one providing the burden of proof by saying such a thing exists; please link what you are talking about so people are on the same page).

In this case, they said that though privacy isn't expressly mentioned, but alluded to in the Constitution. So first, we can establish that they knew privacy isn't mentioned in the Constitution...anywhere. Second, we are depending on the Justice's interpretation of what they thought the Founder's meant in crafting the Bill of Rights. The other huge problem is that you are totally disregarding the dissenters in this ruling. It was, after all, a 7-2 decision, and Justices take their votes and opinions seriously. Black and Stewart dissented on the vary points I'm making..."that the right to privacy is to be found nowhere in the Constitution." To attempt to interpret the original meaning of what the Founder's intended and say they included a right to privacy is absurd.

If privacy was a right in their minds, then why was privacy not mentioned or given it's own amendment? Would it have been that hard to say "All citizens have a right to privacy." Done. But no, it's not there, and the Bill of Rights is a sound piece of work. Also, when the case was brought forward, the plaintiffs brought it under the 14th Amendment only, not all the other amendments you mentioned there being a right to privacy under. If you also notice, the Justices who voted on this ruling and later rulings and defended a right to privacy are mostly liberals. Later on, in Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas would all dissent from the opinion that their was a protected right to privacy.

One last thing you are missing in all this that I mentioned in my last post is that the Supreme Court is not a law making entity. Their job is to interpret. Even if they ruled a right to privacy existed, it's not officially law, only precedent. It is the legislative and executive branches that make laws. If I asked you who better represents the people of the United States, which branch would you pick? Legislative, Executive, or Judicial? Being a Political Science major, I don't think this is hard for you to figure out. The legislative branch best represents the people and the will of the people. Interpreting the Constitution is fine, but to depend on nine Justices to determine what is in the people's best interests or what their will is something different entirely.