In a message dated 3/28/00 11:09:21 PM Central Standard Time, email@example.com
> Do we really have a civil right to privacy?
The US constitutional "right to privacy" is said to be "penumbral", i.e. it
is inferred from (or "found in the shadows of") other, more explicit rights,
such as the 1st (free expression), 4th (freedom from unreasonable search and
seizure) and 5th and 14th (freedom from self-incrimination and right to due
process) amendments in the Bill of Rights. Thus constitutional rights to
privacy tend to be much more a matter of decisional common law than in some
> I know we have always
> assumed that we do, but suppose I have one of those cool airplane
> thingies with the 18 gram camera in it, 15 cm wingspan, 75 gram
> total. I fly it over your house and for some reason I like to gawk
> at you. Have I actually broken any laws?
I don't believe one has "positive" rights to the airspace above one's
property, but rather "negative" rights arising from ownership of land. Thus
one has the right to be free from the nuisance, for instance, that might be
created by low-flying aircraft. In any kind of normal case, one certainly
doesn't have the right to keep someone from looking at you. This makes
"paparazzi" cases difficult for celebrities.
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<firstname.lastname@example.org>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
ICQ # 61112550
"We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
-- Desmond Morris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:08:59 MDT