One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Hacked emails should not be made public; they are protected under privacy laws
Page 1 of 12 next> last>>
Oct 13, 2016 23:42:57   #
MsCentralia
 
The media is violating the Constitution by publishing Clinton's--or anyone else's--illegally hacked emails.

"For example, the first amendment allows the privacy of beliefs, the third amendment protects privacy of the home against any demands to be used to house soldiers, the fourth amendment protects the privacy of a person and possessions from unreasonable searches, and the 5th Amendment gives privacy of personal information through preventing self-incrimination.

"Furthermore, the 9th Amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights as found in the Bill of Rights cannot deny other rights of the people. While this is a vague statement, court precedent has said that the 9th amendment is a way to justify looking at the Bill of Rights as a way to protect the right to privacy in a specific way not given in the first 8 amendments."

http://constitution.laws.com/right-to-privacy

Hacking and then publishing the results by the media violates the 4th Amendment as an unreasonable search and seizure, as well as the 5th Amendment that gives privacy of personal information through preventing of self-incrimination.

It seems rather odd and very troubling to me that no one, Left or Right, even questioned the right of the press to violate privacy in this way. Have we become so scared or numb or cynical that such an outrageous invasion of privacy goes unnoticed? The Patriot Act and its indiscriminate citizen spying for our "protection" is a stake in the heart of this Republic. IT MUST GO! The evidence of how it has changed our basic perception of freedom, fundamental to maintaining this country's ideals of liberty, is clear in not a single voice objecting to the publication by the media of Hillary's, or any person's, private communications.

Reply
Oct 13, 2016 23:48:46   #
America Only Loc: From the right hand of God
 
MsCentralia wrote:
The media is violating the Constitution by publishing Clinton's--or anyone else's--illegally hacked emails.

"For example, the first amendment allows the privacy of beliefs, the third amendment protects privacy of the home against any demands to be used to house soldiers, the fourth amendment protects the privacy of a person and possessions from unreasonable searches, and the 5th Amendment gives privacy of personal information through preventing self-incrimination.

"Furthermore, the 9th Amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights as found in the Bill of Rights cannot deny other rights of the people. While this is a vague statement, court precedent has said that the 9th amendment is a way to justify looking at the Bill of Rights as a way to protect the right to privacy in a specific way not given in the first 8 amendments."

http://constitution.laws.com/right-to-privacy

Hacking and then publishing the results by the media violates the 4th Amendment as an unreasonable search and seizure, as well as the 5th Amendment that gives privacy of personal information through preventing of self-incrimination.

It seems rather odd and very troubling to me that no one, Left or Right, even questioned the right of the press to violate privacy in this way. Have we become so scared or numb or cynical that such an outrageous invasion of privacy goes unnoticed? The Patriot Act and its indiscriminate citizen spying for our "protection" is a stake in the heart of this Republic. IT MUST GO! The evidence of how it has changed our basic perception of freedom, fundamental to maintaining this country's ideals of liberty, is clear in not a single voice objecting to the publication by the media of Hillary's, or any person's, private communications.
The media is violating the Constitution by publish... (show quote)


MORON ALERT! Hillary was a PUBLIC SERVANT....idiot stick....the PUBLIC has and always will have a right to see her emails, minus anything that may be considered against National Security.

What the real issue is, the Media has become a free advertising for Hillary 's bid for the Presidency. And they have not paid attention enough to the most damaging issues and crimes Hillary has indeed, committed.

Reply
Oct 13, 2016 23:53:32   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
MsCentralia wrote:
The media is violating the Constitution by publishing Clinton's--or anyone else's--illegally hacked emails.

"For example, the first amendment allows the privacy of beliefs, the third amendment protects privacy of the home against any demands to be used to house soldiers, the fourth amendment protects the privacy of a person and possessions from unreasonable searches, and the 5th Amendment gives privacy of personal information through preventing self-incrimination.

"Furthermore, the 9th Amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights as found in the Bill of Rights cannot deny other rights of the people. While this is a vague statement, court precedent has said that the 9th amendment is a way to justify looking at the Bill of Rights as a way to protect the right to privacy in a specific way not given in the first 8 amendments."

http://constitution.laws.com/right-to-privacy

Hacking and then publishing the results by the media violates the 4th Amendment as an unreasonable search and seizure, as well as the 5th Amendment that gives privacy of personal information through preventing of self-incrimination.

It seems rather odd and very troubling to me that no one, Left or Right, even questioned the right of the press to violate privacy in this way. Have we become so scared or numb or cynical that such an outrageous invasion of privacy goes unnoticed? The Patriot Act and its indiscriminate citizen spying for our "protection" is a stake in the heart of this Republic. IT MUST GO! The evidence of how it has changed our basic perception of freedom, fundamental to maintaining this country's ideals of liberty, is clear in not a single voice objecting to the publication by the media of Hillary's, or any person's, private communications.
The media is violating the Constitution by publish... (show quote)


Do.you think that since much of what has been exposed has been acquired through the FOIA and has become.public domain.

Not all of course, but much.

It also begs the question: if what.you say applies, why has not Hillary, Obama, the DNC etc. invoked the law?

Is.it because the hacked info was placed on the net where no one could stop it?

Reply
 
 
Oct 14, 2016 00:00:32   #
missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore
 
America Only wrote:
MORON ALERT! Hillary was a PUBLIC SERVANT....idiot stick....the PUBLIC has and always will have a right to see her emails, minus anything that may be considered against National Security.

What the real issue is, the Media has become a free advertising for Hillary 's bid for the Presidency. And they have not paid attention enough to the most damaging issues and crimes Hillary has indeed, committed.


Yup shes public property.
Hell the emails released this newest dump proves the main streams involvement in coordinating her press releases
and debates questioning .

Reply
Oct 14, 2016 00:04:37   #
MsCentralia
 
America Only wrote:
MORON ALERT! Hillary was a PUBLIC SERVANT....idiot stick....the PUBLIC has and always will have a right to see her emails, minus anything that may be considered against National Security.

What the real issue is, the Media has become a free advertising for Hillary 's bid for the Presidency. And they have not paid attention enough to the most damaging issues and crimes Hillary has indeed, committed.


Thank you for the Moron alert. Privacy is privacy. Illegally gained information, of a public or private person, is against the Constitution. I am sure you are one of those people that claim to be a patriot and loyal to our founding documents. Please read them. I would not vote for Hillary with your vote. I am not making a case to protect Hillary from exposure over her irresponsible use of a home server for classified documents; she should go to jail. I am making a case for you and every citizen. We are so inured over violations of privacy that we fail to see this blatant abuse by the media in publishing PRIVATE MESSAGES. Trump had a bitter taste of that recently. "In private" used to be so sacred that the mere hint of impropriety would cause a tsunami of reaction; not a ripple with Hillary.

Hillary is the victim now and many may throw parties in celebration at the illegal disclosures, even elaborate fireworks, but you are next. Or maybe you over there.

Reply
Oct 14, 2016 00:22:05   #
Little Ball of Hate
 
MsCentralia wrote:
Thank you for the Moron alert. Privacy is privacy. Illegally gained information, of a public or private person, is against the Constitution. I am sure you are one of those people that claim to be a patriot and loyal to our founding documents. Please read them. I would not vote for Hillary with your vote. I am not making a case to protect Hillary from exposure over her irresponsible use of a home server for classified documents; she should go to jail. I am making a case for you and every citizen. We are so inured over violations of privacy that we fail to see this blatant abuse by the media in publishing PRIVATE MESSAGES. Trump had a bitter taste of that recently. "In private" used to be so sacred that the mere hint of impropriety would cause a tsunami of reaction; not a ripple with Hillary.

Hillary is the victim now and many may throw parties in celebration at the illegal disclosures, even elaborate fireworks, but you are next. Or maybe you over there.
Thank you for the Moron alert. Privacy is privacy.... (show quote)


If it was a private email, you would be correct. However, she used that same email to conduct government business. So it's fair game.

Reply
Oct 14, 2016 00:32:23   #
MsCentralia
 
Little Ball of Hate wrote:
If it was a private email, you would be correct. However, she used that same email to conduct government business. So it's fair game.


Does that also apply to you? Government business is filling out your tax returns online. I hack you and publish them: is it fair?

Reply
 
 
Oct 14, 2016 00:35:47   #
Little Ball of Hate
 
MsCentralia wrote:
Does that also apply to you? Government business is filling out your tax returns online. I hack you and publish them: is it fair?


No one else uses their email to file their taxes.

Reply
Oct 14, 2016 01:01:24   #
MsCentralia
 
Little Ball of Hate wrote:
No one else uses their email to file their taxes.


I get an itemized return on my tax from turbo tax in an email. Also last year from the IRS.

Reply
Oct 14, 2016 01:47:42   #
Little Ball of Hate
 
MsCentralia wrote:
I get an itemized return on my tax from turbo tax in an email. Also last year from the IRS.


In your private email. Hillary's email server was not private. It was used for government business. Therfore, it is not personal.

Reply
Oct 14, 2016 03:09:37   #
MsCentralia
 
Little Ball of Hate wrote:
In your private email. Hillary's email server was not private. It was used for government business. Therfore, it is not personal.


First of all, my thread has nothing whatsoever to do with Hillary, Secondly, only because it is pertinent to the point I am trying to make, personal emails were also exposed in her email revelations. Hate Hillary, fine. Wish her the worse, fine. Put her in jail, fine. But what I am saying is not about Hillary but our right--OUR RIGHT--to privacy. Stop being defined in thought and action to a particular ideology.

Hillary's emails was on a private server, used both (foolishly) for government and personal stuff.

Reply
 
 
Oct 14, 2016 03:13:09   #
Little Ball of Hate
 
MsCentralia wrote:
First of all, my thread has nothing whatsoever to do with Hillary, Secondly, only because it is pertinent to the point I am trying to make, personal emails were also exposed. Hate Hillary, fine. Wish her the worse, fine. Put her in jail, fine. But what I am saying is not about Hillary but our right--OUR RIGHT--to privacy. Stop being defined in thought and action to a particular ideology.

Hillary's emails was on a private server, used both (foolishly) for government and personal stuff.


She lost any right to privacy when she set up an illegal email server to avoid FOIA requests. Don't be an idiot. I know I'm asking a lot, but at least make an effort.

Reply
Oct 14, 2016 03:58:32   #
Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts
 
MsCentralia wrote:
The media is violating the Constitution by publishing Clinton's--or anyone else's--illegally hacked emails.

"For example, the first amendment allows the privacy of beliefs, the third amendment protects privacy of the home against any demands to be used to house soldiers, the fourth amendment protects the privacy of a person and possessions from unreasonable searches, and the 5th Amendment gives privacy of personal information through preventing self-incrimination.

"Furthermore, the 9th Amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights as found in the Bill of Rights cannot deny other rights of the people. While this is a vague statement, court precedent has said that the 9th amendment is a way to justify looking at the Bill of Rights as a way to protect the right to privacy in a specific way not given in the first 8 amendments."

http://constitution.laws.com/right-to-privacy

Hacking and then publishing the results by the media violates the 4th Amendment as an unreasonable search and seizure, as well as the 5th Amendment that gives privacy of personal information through preventing of self-incrimination.

It seems rather odd and very troubling to me that no one, Left or Right, even questioned the right of the press to violate privacy in this way. Have we become so scared or numb or cynical that such an outrageous invasion of privacy goes unnoticed? The Patriot Act and its indiscriminate citizen spying for our "protection" is a stake in the heart of this Republic. IT MUST GO! The evidence of how it has changed our basic perception of freedom, fundamental to maintaining this country's ideals of liberty, is clear in not a single voice objecting to the publication by the media of Hillary's, or any person's, private communications.
The media is violating the Constitution by publish... (show quote)



Our right to be protected from other people’s curiosity is not absolute. It must be balanced with another constitutionally protected right: freedom of the press, which is historically linked to political democracy.

Democracy can’t function without the free flow of information. The First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law that abridges this freedom. However, freedom of the press can conflict with the individual’s right to privacy. Civilized society requires that we each respect one another’s privacy to some level. The courts have the difficult job of deciding cases that arise when freedom of the press and the right to privacy come into conflict.

As with government cases, the courts use the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test to draw the line between the press’s right to gather information and the individual’s right to be left alone. Decisions depend on what the victim was doing and who the victim is.

For example, when people conduct private business in a place that they can’t reasonably expect to be private—like negotiating a contract in a restaurant—they can’t sue others for divulging overheard information. Who the individual is becomes important if the person seeks public attention. Stories abound about famous people being pursued by media hounds who are bent on scooping the latest celebrity news. Perhaps the most famous, and tragic, such story is about the death of Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales, who was killed in an automobile accident while fleeing reporters.

Whoever works hard to become famous, such as a politician or movie star, voluntarily gives up some expectation of privacy. Ordinary people have a greater expectation of privacy because they have not sought to draw the public’s attention to themselves. That doesn’t mean the press can do anything to get private information about celebrities, but it does mean that the press may legally disclose information about them that it can’t about people who are not famous. It’s the court’s job to decide what is a celebrity’s reasonable expectation of privacy and how it might differ from that of the average person.



http://www.americanbar.org/publications/litigation_journal/2013-14/spring/a_reasonable_expectation_privacy.html

Reply
Oct 14, 2016 06:17:18   #
bilordinary Loc: SW Washington
 
MsCentralia wrote:
The media is violating the Constitution by publishing Clinton's--or anyone else's--illegally hacked emails.

"For example, the first amendment allows the privacy of beliefs, the third amendment protects privacy of the home against any demands to be used to house soldiers, the fourth amendment protects the privacy of a person and possessions from unreasonable searches, and the 5th Amendment gives privacy of personal information through preventing self-incrimination.

"Furthermore, the 9th Amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights as found in the Bill of Rights cannot deny other rights of the people. While this is a vague statement, court precedent has said that the 9th amendment is a way to justify looking at the Bill of Rights as a way to protect the right to privacy in a specific way not given in the first 8 amendments."

http://constitution.laws.com/right-to-privacy

Hacking and then publishing the results by the media violates the 4th Amendment as an unreasonable search and seizure, as well as the 5th Amendment that gives privacy of personal information through preventing of self-incrimination.

It seems rather odd and very troubling to me that no one, Left or Right, even questioned the right of the press to violate privacy in this way. Have we become so scared or numb or cynical that such an outrageous invasion of privacy goes unnoticed? The Patriot Act and its indiscriminate citizen spying for our "protection" is a stake in the heart of this Republic. IT MUST GO! The evidence of how it has changed our basic perception of freedom, fundamental to maintaining this country's ideals of liberty, is clear in not a single voice objecting to the publication by the media of Hillary's, or any person's, private communications.
The media is violating the Constitution by publish... (show quote)


You lose your rights when you break the law!

technically no
obviously yes
no reply needed

Reply
Oct 14, 2016 08:50:11   #
rjoeholl
 
MsCentralia wrote:
The media is violating the Constitution by publishing Clinton's--or anyone else's--illegally hacked emails.

"For example, the first amendment allows the privacy of beliefs, the third amendment protects privacy of the home against any demands to be used to house soldiers, the fourth amendment protects the privacy of a person and possessions from unreasonable searches, and the 5th Amendment gives privacy of personal information through preventing self-incrimination.

"Furthermore, the 9th Amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights as found in the Bill of Rights cannot deny other rights of the people. While this is a vague statement, court precedent has said that the 9th amendment is a way to justify looking at the Bill of Rights as a way to protect the right to privacy in a specific way not given in the first 8 amendments."

http://constitution.laws.com/right-to-privacy

Hacking and then publishing the results by the media violates the 4th Amendment as an unreasonable search and seizure, as well as the 5th Amendment that gives privacy of personal information through preventing of self-incrimination.

It seems rather odd and very troubling to me that no one, Left or Right, even questioned the right of the press to violate privacy in this way. Have we become so scared or numb or cynical that such an outrageous invasion of privacy goes unnoticed? The Patriot Act and its indiscriminate citizen spying for our "protection" is a stake in the heart of this Republic. IT MUST GO! The evidence of how it has changed our basic perception of freedom, fundamental to maintaining this country's ideals of liberty, is clear in not a single voice objecting to the publication by the media of Hillary's, or any person's, private communications.
The media is violating the Constitution by publish... (show quote)


Wasn't it liberal policy that said "If you see something, say something."?

Reply
Page 1 of 12 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.