Talk:right to privacy

RFD discussion
This looks mightily strange to me. Could it be that only Americans have a right to privacy? I hardly think so. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia link actually redirects to privacy law. It is the right to privacy; there are different interpretations as to what this means which is perfectly natural as we're not all clones of each other. The same could be said about very tall but we don't have that; delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I most strongly request that you keep this right. Facebook and Google may have done away with it-- not Wiki, too!! (and yes I know this debate is not about privacy, but have you read 1984? To control thought, first control language. It might as correctly be claimed that we've got a right to pancakes. But it's not by its terminology immediately understood to stand for a fundamental right!!) DeistCosmos (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I read 1984 very recently in fact. Having read what you've said above... what's your reason to want to keep this? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that conversely, by defining a "right to privacy" as anything other than a right that someone has, to have privacy if they want it, we would be the ones twisting the language and putting constructions on things. Equinox ◑ 18:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an especially important right, and so it is something more than simply the words that go into the phrase. You know, in the US the right to abortion is actually part of the right to privacy. It is more important, in any event, then a right to something less fundamental. Maybe for this reason people will be more likely to require translations of it or synonyms if there are any? DeistCosmos (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Especially important right" is POV and doesn't relate to the linguistic properties of the term. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I take it you concede the rest? DeistCosmos (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No; a lot of it is covered by the "very tall" argument I make above. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . Important though it is, without a meaning connected to some specific policy like right to work and right to life, this seems SOP to me. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To be honest I have no idea what DeistCosmos is trying to argue; access to clean water and schooling for women are at least equally if not more important than this Anglocentric right, but that doesn't make them any less SoP. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What if somebody told you you had a right to have an abortion based upon your access to clean water? And yet in the US abortion is legally predicated on the right to privacy. So it actually means more than 'privacy,' but garners a larger libertarianism, a right to do as thou wilt so long as your fist ends before your neighbor's nose!! And somebody in the debate below points out that right to life is even in legal dictionaries as well, and isn't this one? DeistCosmos (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, no. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry DeistCosmos, I have no idea what you're trying to say. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think DeistCosmos is attempting to refer to the seminal U.S. abortion case, Roe v. Wade, which stated:
 * "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy".
 * I note that the opinion generally uses the phrase, "right of privacy" rather than "right to privacy", although it does refer in one instance to a doctor's claim that abortion restrictions "violated his own and his patients' rights to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship". That being said, I would suggest (as I often have) that we create an appendix to cover "rights of" and "rights to", unless they are clearly idiomatic or set phrases. bd2412 T 02:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't see the relevance. All of this is just background information. The definition currently given does not hint at any idiomatic meaning beyond right + to + privacy. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hence my proposal for an appendix, for those who are really eager to define all of the "rights". Cheers! bd2412 T 04:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep in any language: The fact that people are confused on what it is seems like exactly the reason why we should keep it. I am going to create "right to work" and "right to life" in a few days, b/c they are amorphous and need defining too  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. As the definition stands, it does not indicate any meaning beyond a right + to + privacy. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there is a defined legal right to privacy as opposed to a wish for some kind of right to some kinds of privacy. But if someone could find a specific attestable rhetorical or meaning analogous to that of right to life or a legal one, this might be keepable. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)