Civil Rights -- Privacy Vs. Research Paper

PAGES
4
WORDS
1176
Cite

They would subsequently call them at home, leave literature and fetus dolls at their door, and even call families and distant relatives of the patients to inform them of the patients' plans to ask them to intercede. The Pro-Life advocates argued that they were lawfully exercising their right of free speech on public property (such as across the street fro doctors' offices) to verbally attack patients by name as they exercise their equally important right to personal physical autonomy under the recognized privacy penumbras. The Value of the Legal Approach Suggested by the Article

The Yale Law Journal article (Clapman, 2003) explained various ways that the general right of free speech is limited by more important privacy rights. For example, truth is ordinarily an affirmative defense to defamation. However, existing law already recognizes that certain statements, despite being truthful, serve no valid purpose besides injuring another person, such as by purposely publicizing tremendously embarrassing (but true) information about another. The author outlines several different legal justifications for other types of exceptions to general free speech principles. She then suggests that:

"So far, however, advocates have largely overlooked common-law privacy rights as a possible source of protection. This may be a serious mistake. Two common-law torts, in particular, are well suited to the specific harm of abortion outing: the intrusion tort, which covers wrongful intrusions into a person's physical seclusion or personal affairs, and the publication tort, which covers wrongful publication of private facts."

Since the first legal challenges generated by the clash of privacy and free speech rights outside of medical clinics, several states and local governments have implemented legislation that prohibited demonstrations within specific distances of private...

...

However, the principal opposition to abortion is not predicated on humanistic or constitutional principles but strictly on religious grounds: namely, the belief that human life begins at conception (Dershowitz, 2002). Medical patients have a private right to obtain lawful medical services without suffering intentional infliction of emotional distress and trauma. Pro-Life advocates have a free speech right to express their opposition to abortion, including objections based in religious beliefs and definitions. In simple terms, the right to personal privacy and freedom from unwanted verbal confrontations about highly private personal matters outweighs any free-speech right to verbally abuse or publicly embarrass medical patients who do not share the protestors' opinions and beliefs.
Ultimately, in certain contexts, the right of free speech ends where it conflicts with the simultaneous rights of others to privacy in their personal affairs and their right to be free from malicious harassment that happens to be implemented through the medium of "speech."

Sources Used in Documents:

References

Clapman, A. "Privacy rights and abortion outing: a proposal for using common-law torts to protect abortion patients and staff." The Yale Law Journal. Yale University,

School of Law. 2003. Retrieved May 25, 2010 from HighBeam Research:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-101613885.html

Dershowitz, A. (2002). Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age. New York:


Cite this Document:

"Civil Rights -- Privacy Vs " (2010, May 26) Retrieved June 18, 2024, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/civil-rights-privacy-vs-10993

"Civil Rights -- Privacy Vs " 26 May 2010. Web.18 June. 2024. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/civil-rights-privacy-vs-10993>

"Civil Rights -- Privacy Vs ", 26 May 2010, Accessed.18 June. 2024,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/civil-rights-privacy-vs-10993

Related Documents
Roe V. Wade & Texas:
PAGES 5 WORDS 1680

12 (Rubin, 1987, p. 5) The ensuing demonstration of change in legal form is actually one of the best outlined examples of the way in which the evolving and almost living form of the legal and legislative system in the U.S. works. Each ensuing challenge must follow the line of the original legal stand of Roe to either further restrict or unequivocally uphold the Roe ruling. Yet, the ensuing change

There is no need to try the case again. Before Roe vs. Wade, when abortion was illegal, hundreds of young women died every year due to botched illegal abortions. Many also traveled over the border into Mexico for unsafe and unsanitary abortions in that country. Illegal abortions are dangerous and can be deadly, and the country would return to that practice if the court's judgment were altered. In addition, states

Roe V. Wade: An Enduring
PAGES 7 WORDS 1953

While I do believe a woman should have the right to choose, I am not necessarily convinced of that the Ninth and the Fourteenth Amendment allow for a so-called right to privacy to support the creation of a right in this instance. Admittedly, I am not a legal scholar, so to disagree with Justice Blackmun seems a bit of a stretch; however, what he did in Roe v. Wade was

Presidential elections in the U.S.A. The United States Presidential election that was held on 6th November, 2012 was the 57th in the United States history. Such elections are held after every four years. The Democratic Party nominee was President Barack Obama while his running mate was Vice-President Joseph Biden. Both were re-elected for a second term in office. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan were President

(Brownmiller 470) Hemorrhaging blood, Brownmiller was afraid -- but her fear did not make her question her choice. Of course, pro-life activists like Dew would argue that no matter how desperately women might want abortions, they have no right to end another human being's life, regardless of their circumstances. But Dew's line of argumentation raises serious questions about the ethics of forcing another human being to subject their bodies to

Why Abortion Should be AbolishedIntroductionAbortion is legalized infanticide. It is the legal practice of murdering a child growing in the mother�s womb. It has been justified on the grounds that a woman has a right to choose whether she wants to nurture the life that has been conceived inside her. The issue is debated because it is controversial; however, the two sides of the debate do not see the issue