Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Scalia Suggests Women Have No Right to Contraception [View all]Igel
(35,197 posts)Particular rights can be strongly implied even if a general right can't be inferred.
You need privacy for freedom of the press because if you can be compelled to give up sources for any reason then you will have far fewer sources. It's not a yes/no freedom/no-freedom but one of extent. Still, we side with more freedom of the press and that means privacy for sources. It's not absolute: Journalists can be legally compelled to give up sources.
You also need privacy for conspiracy or covering up a murder. There is no privacy there. None. You don't have to confess. But a right to obstructing the law isn't exactly in the Constitution. Perhaps it should be. Probably not.
Or let's look at a more narrow case. My health arrangements are entirely between me and my doctor, and my insurance is entirely between me and my insurance company (who pays the doctors). My insurance provisions are strictly between me and my employer (who largely pays the company), and made known, to the extent necessary, to my doctor.
So why does my employer have to fess up concerning my insurance status? Or why would I? Now, it's written in a limited way to comport with other privacy statutes, but if my employer and I agreed to have coverage less than legally required, and my insurance company agreed, why is it the government's business? Don't I have a right to privacy?
It's even put into law in a weird way. Let's assume I do have the right. Then I would be hit by a penalty/tax. It's like having freedom of the press where sources are confidential, but journalists have to pay a $1000 tax unless they divulge their sources. It meets the requirements of the law and Constitution, right? Then privacy's respected--taxed, but respected.
Not that I especially like this kind of reasoning. But it does mean that you have limited privacy and that the government, when it suits the government, when it finds a reason that the courts think sufficient (which often means 'enough of the population finds sufficient') has no reason to respect it.