FreedomFollow

I disagree, the right to a free press give the press the freedom to publish what they know or their opinions without interference from the government. It does not in any way imply the press has the right to private information from individuals. A reporter cannot get a court order to force someone to reveal infromation because he wants to print it in his newspaper as part of the right to free press.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2007 12:35pm by fhrugby

The press can, however, use the court to compel the government to make information available for print. Which is closer to what we're dicussing here than the New York times trying to force me to tell them what I had for breakfast and what time I went to bed last night.

The definition of what is private or not private is not an integral issue in the debate over whether or not there is a "right to know." If information has been made public, than it is no longer protected by the right to privacy and can be disseminated under the right to free speech or right to free press without any determination of the necessity to suppress the right to privacy.

Nonsense. FOIA (among other acts) allows for much, much more than that.

Edit: This comment is off-track from the OP and I don't mean to imply that you can demand that the administration start issuing new reports and studies under FOIA.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2007 10:48am by Jophiel

Well we could stand up for his right to have babies, even though he can't actually have babies, which is no-one's fault, not even the Romans. . .

That's the most absurd statement I've heard (recently anyway). Of *course* the definition of what is and is not private is integral to whether or not there is a "right to know". Because a right to know something is in direct conflict to a right to privacy. How can you both have a right to know something about me, when I have a right to privacy? The two cannot co-exist at the same time with regard to the exact same information.



Certainly. That's not the problem though. The problem is the process by which information is "made public". If you decide that your right to know something means that you should be able to demand any information be "made public", then you have effectively destroyed any right to privacy that may have existed. If I *choose* to make some information public, then you have a right to know that information (I suppose, although I'm not sure that's really a right in the normal sense). But if I don't make that choice then the only way for you to know that information is to use some legal process to force me to tell you. That's a pretty clear violation of the concept of a right to privacy.


We can debate the degree to which privacy rights exist and "right to know" exists. However, I think it's clear that this is an area in which we need to tread very very carefully. Because selective use of the concept of a "right to know" can easily infringe upon real rights possessed by those you choose to use it on.

The example given was mercury levels in food. Great. That's a case where I'd tend to agree that the public should know what is in the food they are eating. They should know whether the product they are buying is "safe" to use (in this case eat). However, this should not be selectively applied, nor should we rely on public release of information and mass interpretation of that information to apply this concept. We have an FDA that sets levels of different chemicals and whatnot for different catagories of products to determine if something is "safe" or not. The companies in question should certainly be subject to FDA inspection (and are). But demanding that their mercuy levels be released to the public during a period of time when mercury levels in food is being hyped as the current "scourge", isn't a valid way of approaching the issue. Demanding that the FDA address mercury levels *is*.

The reasoning? One method establishes standards and does not blindside companies because a new (and often hyped) awareness of some health threat has appeared out of nowhere. The other uses the hype to attack the companies involved instead of trying to actually come up with a realistic and consistent solution. If your purpose is simply to point the finger of blame at people, then public release of information designed to raise alarm is a good way to do things. I happen to think it's a disgusting tactic, but that seems to be what many people want to do. And that is increasingly the purpose behind the whole "right to know" ideology.

To be perfectly honest, I'm a bit puzzled by what "Freedom" actually means. It's probably cos I'm not American.

"Freedom", legally, doesn't much. Smash was 100% spot on when he talked about "rights", as opposed to "Freedoms".

"Freedom of speech" is a "right to free speech", "Fredom of information" is a "right to transparency from your government". "Freedom to bear arms" is a "right to walk with a gun." Etc...

From what I udnerstand, when people or government talk about Freedom, they either mean "Rights" (in the legal sense of the word), or they talk about a general concept of "not being subjected to violence and oppression".

In this case, it seems to me the issue dealt with is one of "transparency" from the government. And I'm sure that people will agree that one of the key elements of a democratic government, and hence of "Freedom" in a general sense of the word, is "transparency". Or "Accountability". It's knowing that information which doesn't concern "National security" is available to everyone, from Congress to consumer groups.

This, surely, is one of the major differences between a democratic government and a totalitarian one. Transparency. Accountability.

And from reading all this, it seems that the Bush administration is not making things any more transparent, and is doing so purely for political purposes (i.e, hiding "bad news"), as opposed to "National security".

You guys totally have a secret crush on us.

The sentence I wrote immediately after the one you quoted states pretty much the exact thing you wrote "The legislature has also enacted laws to force the government to release information to the public in specific circumstances, for these exact same reasons, with out the necessity of going through the a court determination every single time." The use of the courts to get information is the historical route prior to those acts and also the current route for information not covered under those acts. These court decisions and the legislative acts that followed are incorporating the same premise which is an extension of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and safety suppressing the lesser right to privacy, not a creation of a right to know.






This is a simple case of an "if A, then B" logical argument: in debating whether or not A is true, you do not need to know B. It only becomes necessary to determine the definition of B after A is determined to be true. I was trying to steer that specific debate to its core issue of "Is A true" rather than branching off into ancillary issue discussion of "what is B" which would obscure the real issue, specifically since my position is that A (the existence of a right to know) is not true.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2007 4:25pm by fhrugby

Ok. I suppose I can kinda accept that. I just don't really agree with the way you're using the logic though. The relationship between a "right to know" and a "right to privacy" is antagonistic. If we assume that a right to know means that you have a right to know anything you want about me (or anything or anyone else), then that automatically infringes upon any right to privacy that I (or anyone else) may have.

It's not a simple "if A then B" relationship. It's a "if A then NOT B". More correctly (and more specifically), it's "A + B = 1", where A is the right to know, B is the right to privacy, and "1", measures "full freedom in any given area". So you could have 1A and 0B, or .5A and .5B, or 0A and 1B, but you could not ever have 1A and 1B.

Given that relationship it's absolutely necessary to discuss both equally. You can't just argue that a "right to know" exists, without considering its effect on a "right to privacy".


Um. I'd also like to inject that neither are properly "rights" in the traditional sense. As I've argued many times, what many people call a "right to privacy" is actually a "right to private property", which is subtly different. The 4th ammendment is pretty clear about this. The government cannot search your private property and seize your papers without due process and warrant. Our concept of privay rights derive from this right. It's important in this discussion, because when we talk about a "right to know", we're not really talking about you having a right to know what you can know. We're talking about you having the "power" to use the government to force another entity (whether a private individual or business) to turn over their documents for your own perusal.

It's not your "right" to know something that is being demanded, but your "ability" to have the information presented to you. That is *also* subtly different. It's also hugely significant, because it requires that we argue that the publics "right" to have that information represents "due process" within our legal system, something that I find disturbing on many levels.