1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

ACLU says bathroom sexcapades are none of the gov's damn business!!!!

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by zagoshe, Jan 16, 2008.

  1. sportschick

    sportschick Active Member

    Yea, he was great in The Client.
     
  2. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    If the Founding Fathers didn't want men to pick up strangers in bathrooms, they wouldn't have left room under the stalls to play footsie.
     
  3. MCbamr

    MCbamr Member

    Since I'm not a liberal, I'm kinda stoopid. Splain to me what that has to do with privacy. And don't say it's because those are your private parts.
     
  4. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    I don't think you're stoopid because of your political affiliation.

    You have heard of doctor-patient confidentiality, haven't you?
     
  5. The right to choose (Roe) is based in the right to privacy (Griswold).
     
  6. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    So as long as you choose to kill your 2-year-old in the privacy of your own home you have nothing to worry about.
     
  7. Just to play Devil's Advocate...


    The ACLU on guns:
    Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

    Not the ACLU on abortion:
    Most people who consider themselves pro-choice concede that the Constitution certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to terminate any pregnancy moments before birth. The question therefore is not whether to restrict abortion, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
     
  8. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Little known fact: Faneuli Hall's outhouses had glory holes.
     
  9. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    I agree with the ACLU on this, and here is why.

    It's all about lines in the sand.

    I work for a place that would love to put video surveillance cameras in bathrooms. It would cut down on crime. No doubt about that. But at what price would this reduction in crime come for us?

    If you say that the Gov should not have expected privacy in his stall, then you are moving that line of monitored bathrooms just a little bit forward. If you are not expecting privacy in your stall, then you should be expected to be filmed.

    I do not think anyone really wants that.

    In the upcoming years and decades, technology will be slowly taking away our privacy. For both good and bad, it will be taken away.

    Tomorrow, pay attention to how many different times during your day you are filmed. If you live in NYC, I'm guessing you are constantly filmed, except when you go into your apartment and draw your blinds and when you go to the bathroom.
     
  10. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    One of the great non sequitors of all time.
     
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Which part of the constitution can I find the "right to privacy"?

    You know the answer, of course...

    And can you come up with anything more comprehensive and vague than that. It could cover anything, provided you have enough judges acting like legislators who need something that sounds like a rationale to make laws (without ever having been elected to do so). We have legislatures (you know, democracy, where we elect people to represent us!), which were supposed to deal with most of the things the Supreme Court legislates itself as a matter of course, today...But the idea was that if you wanted to assign rights into the constitution (like a right to privacy, which they didn't even make any bones about saying was bullshit -- they threw a bunch of amendments into a hat and made up some BS about "penumbras" and "emanations" being formed--you were supposed to amend it, not have nine lifetime appointed people come to an ideological decision about a social issue and then make shit up that isn't in the constitution to try to justify what they are doing.
     
  12. Diabeetus

    Diabeetus Active Member

    I'm going to be bold and predict this thread makes it to 5 pages before getting locked.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page