Retrophisch

Question: in your view, what's fundamentally wrong with a legally protected right to privacy? (constitutional, common-law, or otherwise)

Surely there is some place in the system to protect you in that regard.

The fundamental flaw with any type of legally protected right to privacy would be that numerous illegal activities could be undertaken in the "privacy" of one's home and there would be nothing at all that the judicial system could do about it. In tight regards to what Senator Santorum was speaking about, the door would be left wide open for pedophile parents to sexually abuse their own (or other's) children.
But we all would have to admit that it would be taken much, much further by those Leftist plebeians (man, I love that!). Drug labs, spousal abuse, so on and so forth. And knowing the way that some fame-seeking land-sharks (errr...defense lawyers) twist the law, so many criminals would not even be tried for legitimate crimes - all by simply invoking that phrase: "right to privacy".
It is difficult to imagine just how many rightfully imprisoned criminals would have to be released because their newly-granted "right to privacy" had been violated.
I know, I know. I took this to a small extreme. But, seeing how the "loophole leaping Left" works, that would be exactly where we would end up.

B.

Oh come now. You could not get away with the defence that you have a 'right to privacy' with regard to beating your spouse, because your right to privacy ends where your spouse's right to not get beaten starts.

You can think of better examples than this, I presume.

I only referenced spousal abuse because sometimes it IS accepted by the victim and charges are never file by said victim. Spousal abuse is covered under our Assault laws - and I would never, ever condone this behavior. But, should a victim of abuse desire not to press charges then this would fall somewhere within (IMO, at the extreme edge of) "consentual" activity. With a hypothetical law in place which would guarantee a "right to privacy" for consentual behavior(s), District Attorneys could not press charges for spousal abuse without the victim filing charges first. Under cuurrent law, the DA can press these charges without the victim's approval.

We have laws which make many behaviors illegal. Many of these behaviors do not necessarily victimize anyone (other than the violator), yet they are still illegal. These laws are the basis of what society has deemed as acceptable moral activity. Seat belt/helmet laws, for an off-the-cuff example. Growing a couple marijuana plants for personal use only also popped into my bald head.

Implementing a legally protected right to privacy would trash most or all of these moral-based laws.

The Fourth Amendment already guarantees a very basic right to privacy, as long as there is no probable cause to believe a law is/has been broken. And this is where society's morals comes into play.

I guess the debate boils down to just what society believes is acceptable behavior. Is it discriminatory? Sure it is. We, as a society, have every right to establish the rules for living in our own community, county, and state. No state should have to conform to the ways of another, as long as the Constitution of the United States is not violated.

Making certain consentual activities either legal or illegal is the basic right of each individual state.

With a hypothetical law in place which would guarantee a "right to privacy" for consentual behavior(s), District Attorneys could not press charges for spousal abuse without the victim filing charges first.

meanwhile, thinking of the 1965 case Chris cites, what the hell right does the government have to tell anyone that they can't use a safe method of birth control?

Raena,
Actually yes, Brian is correct.
In multiple states as it stands now, no crime has been committed in spousal abuse if the abused does not file assault charges.
States have been working on changing that in order to be able to prosecute abusers without the abused consent.
Recall that there is often a dependant need to the abuser by the abused, and I'm even willing to conceed there may actually exist some form of love for the person that is abusing them.
Not only that, those deviants whom abuse their spouse can often make threat about killing their spouse if they speak to the police about it.
The new laws allow peace officers to arrest the violater, and the DA to press charges without the abused filing charges.
The justification (imho) for these new laws is in the interest of protecting the abused person from further injury.

On the issue of privacy, I'd see it as a piece of fluff legistlation.
We are protected from unreasonable search and seziure(sp?).
The only time this right is violated is if the officer believes that there is a current crime being commited or someones life is in danger.

Some of Chris's examples are slighty subject to challange tho.
Privacy applies only to you, so driving while drunk, does not apply.
Same thing about vision, they are safety laws.
Now the rest of them I'll agree with in the manner that they invade a persons right to do to their bodies as they choose.
Their is a fine line between the inviolate rights of a single person, versus the good of the community.
It's tough to find that line and keep it well defined as most times we err on the side of the community.
Anywho, long post, sorry if it's rather disjointed, brain isn't working today (yes yes, how is that different from any other day, ha ha.)

Ricky

The 1965 "Griswold vs Connecticut" case is mentioned by Chris because (sorry Chris...trying to read your mind) it is an example of the federal government overstepping its own limits as set forth in the Constitution.
Had the Supreme Court rejected the case on these grounds, this [fictitious] "right to privacy" would not exist - as it should not - any more than is guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gave the U.S. Supreme Court any juristiction on that case in 1965. The only jurisdiction given is where a state law directly violates the U.S. Constitution or other federal laws. The law in question did not violate any rights laid forth in our Constitution. Nor did it violate any federal laws. Some liberal made up this "right to privacy", and the Supreme Court blindly accepted it. Period.
Please, don't misunderstand me. I do not agree with a law that bans preventative birth control.
It is better, IMO, to prevent life from ever beginning, than to terminate it once it has begun.

But a state ban on preventative birth control is still a states issue, not a federal one.

I firmly believe that the intent of this law was to limit premarital/extramarital sexual behavior. In 1965, both of these behaviors were still social taboos - for the most part.
The law would have been repealed, anyway, in time.

Ricky - I wasn't commenting on *current* law, I was asking if it were true that a law about privacy would automatically nullify any avenue to charge for assault. I would doubt that very much: there are plenty of laws about 'you may not do x except when y happens.' Like the one you mention regarding search and seizure, for example: you may not bust into my house except when you think I'm committing a crime.

So, how would a right to privacy do as Brian says, and change the very obvious and valuable need for the law to 'violate' that privacy when you're undertaking an illegal act?

I think that's a red herring, anyway: the application of the concept of privacy, in the context of the 1965 and 1973 decisions, is nothing to do with one's house: it's about one's medical and health decisions.