[wrbones]

Amendment four and amendment nine...in my opinion...

"secure in their persons"
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

and "denying or disparaging" other rights to be retained...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article IV
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Not being a constitutional scholar, this is just my opinion.

[durasell]

William Sidis Versus The New Yorker magazine. He was a child prodigy who was interviewed when a youngster. As a grown man, he was "interviewed" without his consent, sued the magazine and lost the case.

Sidis vs. F-R Pub. Corp

Federal Reporter, 1941, #113, 807-811

---

In a 5 - 4 opinion, hence by the vote of a single

Justice, the US Supreme Court decided that fame

cast upon one's shoulders the burden of losing

one's rights of privacy. Chief Justice Brandeis, the

deciding vote, said The New Yorker article was,

"...merciless in its dissection of intimate details

of its subject's life," and further admitted that

ALL have the "... right to be protected from

the prying of the press..." But he proceeded to

deny Sidis that right because he was a public

figure! This case set the precedent which has

come up time and again in celebrity libel cases

against the press.

[robertpaulsen]

Constitutional "right to privacy" protections (if any) are only binding on federal and state governments. The Fourth Amendment, for example, is not effective against private entities.

For that, we would turn to the common law of torts, specifically privacy protection against the tort of "intrusion".

The Restatement (Second) of Torts, 652D. Publicity Given to Private Life provides that:

One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that:
(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.

Sounds like we have a winner.