Right Of Privacy Permits Citizens example essay topic

According to William Bier (Ed. ), Privacy, 1980, X. "Central to the right of human rights is the right to privacy" Because I agree with William Bier, I stand in firm negation that in the U.S. Judicial system, truth seeking ought not to take precedence over privileged communication. The value I will be upholding is privacy. This value should take significance in today's debate because according to Louis Brand is (Supreme Court Justice), In Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy, 1984, p. 186. "The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to pursuit of happiness.

They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect... They sought to protect American's in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred as against the government, the right to be left alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men". [Ellipses in original.] For the purpose of this debate, I will be upholding the following value criterion, individualism.

This value criterion is important because according to Jack Cox (American Author on Conservatism), This... I Believe, 1962, p. 29. "The mechanism of liberty is simple: each individual decides for himself what he will do with his life, and because he is free, he is rewarded according to how hard and how well he works. Because he has chosen his own course and is rewarded according to what he accomplishes, he is more creative and more productive then he would be under any other system".

The resolution in question in unjustified for these 2 reasons: 1.) Privacy is essential to individual freedom. 2.) Privacy is essential to freedom of expression. The first reason that I disagree with the resolution is that privacy is essential to Individual freedom. By this I mean that privacy is the core to all of your freedoms.

Without privacy, you lose your right to be an individual. For support of this I turn to In Re Lifeshchutz, p. 2d, 557 at 567, 1970. "Concern for valued aspects of individual privacy may ultimately aid in protecting man from the denumization of an ever-encroaching technological environment. The retention of a degree of communications lies at the heart of the broad rational of Griswold". This is saying that it is important for people to have privacy because it keeps their basic rights and freedoms intact. The removal of privileged communication from our judicial system would ultimately aid in the removal privacy.

The second reason that the resolution is not justified is that privacy is essential to freedom of expression. By this I mean that you are allowed to express yourself however you like, even if it means keeping your ideas to yourself. Privacy is vital to this freedom. For support of this I turn to Thomas G. Krattenmaker (Associate Professor, Law, Georgetown), GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, 1973, p. 88. "Fourth, the right of privacy permits citizens to engage in limited and protected communication. Confidences and intimacies can be shared with those who are trusted and equally important, distances can be erected as shields from premature or too widespread dissemination of information.

Any individuals social life involves a constant balancing between the need for secrecy and the need for participation; the right of privacy permits the citizen to strike his own accommodation between these conflicting desires. Further, the need for such a facility increases as the external society becomes more crowded, multi-faceted, and intense. 'Reserved communication is the means of psychic self-preservation for men in the metropolis. ' " This is saying that privileged communication is important for the survival of privacy, which ultimately aids in the survival of freedom of expression. In conclusion you can see that truth-seeking should not take precedence over privileged communication because of the value of privacy. And for these two reasons: 1.) Privacy is essential to individual freedom.

Therefore, I ask for a negative vote in today's debate. Let's take a look at the affirmative case and see how it does not stand.