[Ecommerce] Limbaugh Discovers Constitutional Right to Privacy

[Jeff Williams]

James and all,

  I have never taken Mr. Limbaugh seriously.  I recognize that
many unfortunate souls have.  Indeed he is a hypocrite.  I find
it also very unfortunate that he has been a very visible representative
in the radio and television media of the politically conservative...

James Love wrote:

> This from Morons in the news..
>
> http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=4369
>
> Morons in the News: Limbaugh Discovers Constitutional Right to Privacy
> Posted by amused spatula on Dec. 23, 2003
> (28 comments from readers)
>
>      "There is no right to privacy specifically enumerated in the
> Constitution" -- Rush Limbaugh
>
> Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite.
>
> You might recall that in response to the decision this year in Lawrence
> and Garner versus Texas, which established that people have a right to
> sexual privacy in their own bedrooms, free from the meddling of state
> laws criminalizing their adult, consensual sexual behaviour, Rush
> Limbaugh said, "There is no right to privacy specifically enumerated in
> the Constitution." We reposted an article about this detailing lots of
> rights we take for granted that aren't specifically enumerated in the
> Constitution and how the word "privacy" in colonial times meant doing a
> toilet.
>
> It turns out that Limbaugh has miraculously discovered a Constitutional
> right to privacy when it's his privacy in question. As you probably
> know, Limbaugh is being investigated for illegally obtaining thousands
> of doses of Oxycontin to feed his drug addiction. As part of that
> investigation, prosecutors wanted access to his medical records. I
> agreed that it wouldn't be appropriate for the records to be made fully
> public, but that as part of an ongoing criminal investigation it was
> proper for records pertinent to the investigation to be subpoenaed.
>
> But Rush "No Constitutional Right to Privacy" Limbaugh's lawyers, led by
> Roy Black argued that releasing his medical records to prosecutors
> violated Limbaugh's Constitutional right to privacy. Judge Jeffrey A.
> Winikoff disagreed, saying, "The court knows of no less intrusive means
> to obtain the clearly relevant information than the methods the state
> employed here." He added that the state had acted in good faith.
>
> Maybe what Rush meant to say that there was no Constitutional right to
> privacy for law-abiding homosexuals, but there is a Constitutional right
> to privacy for conservative radio talk show host prescription drug addicts.
>
> ---Nick
>
> --
> James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:james.love@cptech.org
> tel. +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecommerce mailing list
> Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801