Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: JME_FAN
That is perhaps the most flimsiest of legal theories I have ever come across.

Yeah, almost as flimsy as saying Donald Trump's joke about "maybe the Russians can find Hillary's missing e-mails" was a legally actionable indication of collusion between President Trump and Vladimir Putin.

Fact is, it's already been used, in a way. Protestors at George Mason University tried went to court to sue conservative students who videoed them, and subsequently posted those videos on line.

The protestors claimed that their right to privacy was violated by the students who posted the videos, but the judge dismissed the case by pointing out the obvious: that the protestors chose to waive their privacy rights when they decided to undertake a protest in a public space.

This situation is obviously quite different, but do you really think that will stop left-wing activists from using that argument in court?

17 posted on 02/04/2019 3:41:45 PM PST by Steely Tom ([Seth Rich] == [the Democrat's John Dean])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: Steely Tom

The difference is that those students were not in the act of protesting at the time of the incident. They were pedestrians, minding their own business, while peacefully waiting for their bus ride home. In fact, they were the ones initially assaulted by the “Black Israelite” mob, and then by Nathan Phillips.

Otherwise, any one of us, who have attended a political rally, public hearing, or made any sort of public address, or filed a complaint to authorities, or set foot in a courtroom, &c., could be considered a public figure. There would be no statute of limitation, per se. The fact that we may have, at any point in time, conversed on a public telephone, sent e-mails over a common ISP, wrote opinions on a public forum, &c., or even paid our bills via the USPS, would remove our state of private citizen.

Under such a perversely twisted legal doctrine, one would necessarily be required to remain a secluded hermit, never interacting with any other human beyond the interior of our residence - and even that might be assailable, if the person with whom we made contact was not an immediate relation.

Consider that lawful marriage is a public act, requiring the permission of the state (which is why the state has say in issues of probate - the “marriage license” is a contract, and the state is a third party to the marriage). Therefore, under color of law, it may be asserted that a husband and wife are not private individuals, but rather they are a public corporation.

Everything, from filing a tax return, voting, registering for selective service, applying for a mortgage, owning property, &c may be construed as a public act that strip away the legal fiction of “privacy.”

The irony to all of this is that Roe v Wade is based upon the notion of a “right to privacy - found in the penumbra of the Bill of Rights” So one may, as a “private” individual, legally murder an unborn child .... but to have ever protested against such action, no matter how far removed from any other action, costs the protesting entity their right to privacy.

Do you see the rabbit hole this doctrine opens? Under it, there is essentially no such entity as a “private” individual.


36 posted on 02/04/2019 4:41:11 PM PST by JME_FAN (If you lived here, you'd be home by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Steely Tom

This is a Kentucky specific law their suit under sport. The George Mason case was under different jurisdiction. But thanks for playing


49 posted on 02/04/2019 7:04:04 PM PST by DesertRhino (Dog is man's best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson