Weiner v. Breitbart -- US Supreme Court

[kentuck]

Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, protected the individual's right to privacy. Roe v. Wade came later. It is an established law.

Personally, I think Anthony Weiner needs to take this case to the courts. It would be a precedent in the technology era. If you send someone a private photo, pornographic or whatever, does someone else have a right to get that photo and put it all over the Internet and the world? Unless this individual was CC'ed the photo, then he would have no claim to it. He would have no right to disseminate the photo and to humiliate or destroy the life of the other individual.

With that said, I think Weiner's career is possibly over. His political life, and perhaps his personal life, is ruined. It is not relevant whether or not he sent pornographic photos of himself to women or not? The question is whether or not Mr Breitbart had the right to intercept or to attain those photos and put them out for everyone to see? I think the law would say that he does not and that he should be held accountable, both monetarily and criminally.

I think Congressman Weiner should take this all the way to the Supreme Court. It is not about whether he was right or wrong in his actions. It is about his right to privacy.

[aquart]

1. Griswold is under attack from all sides.

I heard that on...Rachel, I think?

[cali]

2. He's a public figure.

[kentuck]

3. That doesn't mean we can take a camera into his bedroom.

He still has a right to a certain degree of privacy.

[cali]

4. you're right. but no one did that. he sent a photo out on a twitter feed.

there's a difference.

[kentuck]

5. I realize that but..

I still think there are privacy issues here that need to be addressed by the Court. How did Breitbart get the photos?

[ejpoeta]

6. once weiner sent those pictures to another person, they could do whatever they wanted with them.

they could have posted them all over hell with his name right on them if they wanted to and he couldn't have done anything about it. they could have sold them to the tabloids. if breitbart hacked into his computer to access the pictures, that might be a different matter, but if he and his minions were stalking weiner's twitter followers, then i'd bet they got access that way. if that is the case then weiner has no recourse.

[kentuck]

7. I think that is the question?

Is there a right to show a "private" photo to whomever you wish if it was sent to "you"?

[cali]

8. I don't think it is a question. I think it's long settled law.

[kentuck]

9. There are new questions brought about by the new technology.

Just because it is possible to do something with the technology does not necessarily make it right or overrides the individual right to privacy. If someone sends me a pornographic photo of himelf/herself, I would argue that I do not have a right to show it to the world. If I am offended or somehow threatened by the photo, I have the right to take it to the law enforcement people but nothing beyond that.

[DevonRex]

32. The fact that he chose to use that technology further weakens an already losing argument

[H2O Man]

29. It is.

I don't like what happened, or how it happened. But while Rep. Weiner has a right to file such a case, it would absolutely be dismissed without so much as a single hearing.

[ejpoeta]

10. unless they are underage. then you are possessing child porn. in fact if you are a child

and take a pic of yourself you are possessing child porn. but that is a separate thing. if you took a picture of yourself and sent it to someone, it is i believe now out there and there is nothing you can do. we have seen that in the case of sexting. kids have been doing this and i haven't heard of any case where they have had recourse.

[kentuck]

11. But you would not have the right to take those photos sent by underage children..

and send them out over the Internet. That is the question that needs to be addressed by a court of law. What are the limits of privacy over the Internet? It is easy to say there are none but when there is personal or physical damage done by the exposure of these photos, then someone should be held responsible.

[ejpoeta]

15. has this even been litigated. and i was saying that about the underage thing...

underage is underage. but as an adult, i can't understand why anyone would take a pic of themself in the first place. but to send it to another person. yech. but have there even been any court cases about this?

[kentuck]

16. None that I know...

That is why I think it should go to the Court. There should be some clarification.

[adigal]

27. Underage children are a different, very serious issue

If you do anything with pics sent to you of underage kids except call the police, you will be arrested for having and/or sending child pornography. Very strict rules on that, thank goodness.

Now, if some fool sends you pictures, you can do what you want with them. If they wanted them to remain private, they wouldn't have sent them out. You can have an expectation of privacy, but I can't see how the law is involved if they are shared?

[WillowTree]

21. The first photo...

....was sent out on his public twitter feed. What is it about that that people don't get? He posted the picture online. Yes, it was evidently posted by accident, but he posted it nonetheless. He's acknowledged that much himself. Once it's on the 'Net, it's in the public domain and there ain't no way to get it back.

The others are photos he sent to other people. After he sent them, those people shared them with Breitbart (and who knows who all else?). Again, you send something to someone else, you'd better know that they could turn around and share it elsewhere, especially if they get POed for some reason. And what law, exactly, does that violate?

[SoDesuKa]

37. Sharing Photos on Twitter

What is Twitter? I thought it was limited to 140 characters at a time. That's not enough for any kind of picture, not even ASCII art.

[leveymg]

12. U.S. v Clarence Thomas

[adigal]

28. Too bad Clarence didnt tweet pics of himself to Anita Hill

He might not be on the USSC today.

[melm00se]

13. upon reading the ToS and Privacy policy

I think the following apply:

Tweets, Following, Lists and other Public Information: Our Services are primarily designed to help you share information with the world. Most of the information you provide to us is information you are asking us to make public. This includes not only the messages you Tweet

Basic Terms
You are responsible for your use of the Services, for any Content you post to the Services, and for any consequences thereof. The Content you submit, post, or display will be able to be viewed by other users of the Services

Tip: What you say on Twitter may be viewed all around the world instantly. You are what you Tweet!

http://twitter.com/tos
http://twitter.com/privacy

I think that you give up your expectation of privacy once you publish it to a site like this

[kentuck]

14. But should you?

"give up your expectation of privacy"?

They can say anything they want in these agreements.

[Zywiec]

18. They can say anything they want in these agreements.

Correct, and you can either join or opt out.

No one is forcing you to be on Twitter and agree to their terms.

[kentuck]

19. Some folks might question if these agreements are legal?

Many, many paragraphs and you check a little box that you agree with the terms. They have no idea of your mental capacity or anything else. I would question their legality also.

[melm00se]

25. excellent points

but lets go to the heart of your assertions:

Many, many paragraphs...(presumably overly complex, convoluted and arcane): while there are quite a few paragraphs in the ToS, but my reading indicates that this ToS agreement is fairly simple and is summed up in this one line:

What you say on Twitter may be viewed all around the world instantly. You are what you Tweet!


They have no idea of your mental capacity...

that is true but mental capacity to enter into the contract is a defense that could be raised during any litigation of the contract signing. Based upon Rep Wiener's status as a US representative, it is highly unlikely that this defense would be successful.

...or anything else

this covers a lot of ground but lets try:

age of consent: As there are age requirements to be a Congressman, it would be presumed that Rep. Wiener is of legal age to enter the contract.

did he read the contract? failure to read a contract is not a defense, the court presumes that the signatories have read the contract prior to signing it (electronically or otherwise).

One that you did not explicitly mention:

Are electronic signatures valid and enforceable?: yes assuming that they meet the UETA requirements.

[pipoman]

24. These photos were uploaded to an image hosting site

just because a link is blind, doesn't make it 'not public'. There is no recourse. If the pic was posted on some type of password secured or encrypted storage, for instance sites which offer off site computer backup, there may be an expectation of privacy. Any judge or jury would have to agree, one who posts a private photo on a public site is foolish and deserving of nothing.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

17. Photos were posted on PUBLIC sites. Sorry, no case. nt

[kentuck]

20. So Breitbart would have every right to those photos?

Even if they were not sent to him? He could do whatever he wanted with them?

[Countdown_3_2_1]

36. I don't see the cops coming. Do You?

If there was something that could have been done to Breibart, it would have happened by now.

[Uben]

22. It's no secret.....

..anything sent over the internet or cell phones should be considered public domain. It is up to the individual to see that secure info is encrypted or safe from hacking. That is why I would never send anything I would not want to be public over a phone or the internet. Is there a right to privacy if the info was not encrypted? If you leave your car doors unlocked with the keys in it, would the insurance company be liable for the theft of said vehicle? No, because you did not use reasonable care to secure it. I see this the same way.

right? or wrong?

[kentuck]

23. Even if you leave your keys in your car and it is stolen...

The thief can steal be held responsible for stealing your car.

If we are to assume that there is no more privacy, we can take the photos that teenagers take while "sexting" and spread them all over the Internet. No matter how many lives it might destroy. There is no more right to any privacy. I don't agree with that assumption. Or would it make a difference because they were "underage"?

[Mz Pip]

33. Underage counts for a lot

in the law. Once a person is an adult the law changes.

Accidentally leaving your keys in your car is not an open invitation for someone to steal it.

I suspect that if you give someone a picture, unless you have a signed airtight contract that it stays with them, the receivers of that picture can do whatever they want with it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

26. This case would have all the merit of

Breitbart vs Democratic Underground. Defamation of character, for damaging innuendo that he has syphilis.


Sorry...once you send pics out, the recipient can do as they please with them. If anything, the case would be
Weiner vs. The Starry-Eyed Chicks He Sent Stuff to and Who Now Want to Cash In.

[robinlynne]

30. he would lose.

[DevonRex]

31. That case would be laughed out of any and every court in the US.

The underlying facts and principlea remain the same regardless of the technology used. If anything, the tech used weakens that case even further

[ChrisBorg]

34. If you send me a picture I have every right to do whatever I wish with it.

I now own it. I might not be able to make money from it if something is trademarked or copyrighted but I can show it to anybody I please.

[SoDesuKa]

35. Wiretap Laws Apply to Voice Over IP

Wiretap laws haven't changed because telephone technology has changed. VOIP is the Internet. Essentially it means that you retain the right of privacy even if you use the Internet.

Question: Does a digital image have the same protections as speech?

Answer: I don't see why not. Telecommunication has expanded from Your Ears Only to Your Eyes Only, and the right of privacy, if it were to shift at all, does not shift because of Voice Over IP technology. It's the expectation of privacy that stays constant.

On Point: The argument that you don't lose ownership rights because technological advances make your property easier to steal. Theft is theft, and wiretapping is wiretapping, even if it is carried out after the fact by misappropriation of digital content.

Judgment for the plaintiff

Honorable SoDesuKa presiding

/s/