You be the judge

[StrangeSox]

To get to this:

 

 

 

you have to decide this:

 

 

 

Otherwise the fact that I love singing in the shower (or any other number of things I don't want people to know) is private and i should be able to sue if someone lets it out.

 

 

Lawrence explicitly lists sexual orientation as a private right along with some others.

[StrangeSox]

But you're skipping the first step, which is whether the information disclosed is "private" such that an invasion of that privacy is actionable. What these cases are essentially saying is that sexual orientation is now "private" information that shouldn't be disclosed without approval. Inherent in saying that is that something is wrong with being gay. You wouldn't see an invasion of privacy claim for outing me as being heterosexual right?

This is ridiculous. Private information is not by definition "bad" information.

[Jenksismyhero]

The right to privacy doesn't revolve around the moral acceptability of the private information. That is a terrible argument.

 

My point was that this line of judicial thinking inherently accepts the viewpoint that homosexuality is bad, whether they intend it or not. You're segmenting out sexual orientation, but only homosexuality, as something private. You're picking and choosing. It's akin to affirmative action - discrimination is fine, but only when used in what we, a panel of judges, determines to be the right situation.

[StrangeSox]

My point was that this line of judicial thinking inherently accepts the viewpoint that homosexuality is bad, whether they intend it or not. You're segmenting out sexual orientation, but only homosexuality, as something private. You're picking and choosing. It's akin to affirmative action - discrimination is fine, but only when used in what we, a panel of judges, determines to be the right situation.

No, it doesn't. It accepts orientation as private and nothing more.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, it doesn't. It accepts orientation as private and nothing more.

 

Ok, so if a teacher tells my parents he saw me kissing a girl in the hallway, I can sue because he's invaded my privacy of sexual orientation right?

[StrangeSox]

Ok, so if a teacher tells my parents he saw me kissing a girl in the hallway, I can sue because he's invaded my privacy of sexual orientation right?

minority class vs norm, but legally maybe. That would depend on a legal expectation of privacy.

[Soxbadger]

Strangesox,

 

As an aside, I am extremely pro gay rights (marriage, etc). So much so that I believe they should be treated the exact same way I would treat anyone else.

 

Invasion of privacy is an extreme cause of action, it just seems like a misplaced application of law here. If you think they were going after her because she was a lesbian, sue them for discrimination. But invasion of privacy? No one has even suggested that the school would have any issue telling a parent that their child had a relationship with another student. Let alone the parent or student suing the school.

[Soxbadger]

Ok, so if a teacher tells my parents he saw me kissing a girl in the hallway, I can sue because he's invaded my privacy of sexual orientation right?

 

Jenks,

 

An act done in public has no expectation of privacy.

[StrangeSox]

Strangesox,

 

As an aside, I am extremely pro gay rights (marriage, etc). So much so that I believe they should be treated the exact same way I would treat anyone else.

 

Invasion of privacy is an extreme cause of action, it just seems like a misplaced application of law here. If you think they were going after her because she was a lesbian, sue them for discrimination. But invasion of privacy? No one has even suggested that the school would have any issue telling a parent that their child had a relationship with another student. Let alone the parent or student suing the school.

It seems like a completely straight forward application of the law. Lawrence defines orientation as a privacy right. The coaches violated the students right by exposing information to the mother.

[iamshack]

Otherwise the fact that I love singing in the shower (or any other number of things I don't want people to know) is private and i should be able to sue if someone lets it out.

That is a ridiculous example.

 

The information has to be something that is considered an important private concern, such as your personal finances, your health, your SEXUALITY, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Strangesox,

 

If you are going to say Lawrence, at least give me a cite to the case so I can look at it. I dont know every case off the top of my head, especially ones that arent applicable to any cases Ive ever handled.

[iamshack]

Strangesox,

 

If you are going to say Lawrence, at least give me a cite to the case so I can look at it. I dont know every case off the top of my head, especially ones that arent applicable to any cases Ive ever handled.

Oh give me a break. Lawrence is not some random freaking case he is mentioning.

[Jenksismyhero]

minority class vs norm, but legally maybe. That would depend on a legal expectation of privacy.

 

Based on these decisions apparently I have an expectation that my sexual orientation, whatever that may be, is private.

 

There are two things at play here. One is the right to privacy (constitutional), the other is the actionable civil cause of action for invasion of privacy. They are not the same.

[Jenksismyhero]

That is a ridiculous example.

 

The information has to be something that is considered an important private concern, such as your personal finances, your health, your SEXUALITY, etc.

 

It IS about my sexuality.

 

Remove the public aspect of it. I'm in the same situation as this person. I'm completely asexual in public, but there's a rumor that I do in fact like women. The teachers get it out of me and tell my parents. According to this ruling I have an expectation that my sexual orientation should remain private.

[Soxbadger]

Its common courtesy and if its so damn common why not just tell me what the name of the case is so I can actually look it up and read it? Its kind of hard to make an informed argument when you dont even know the case the other side is referring to. And its not like Im asking him to cite it properly, Im just asking for the full name of the case to enlighten those of us who dont know what case that is.

[Balta1701]

Its common courtesy and if its so damn common why not just tell me what the name of the case is so I can actually look it up and read it? Its kind of hard to make an informed argument when you dont even know the case the other side is referring to. And its not like Im asking him to cite it properly, Im just asking for the full name of the case to enlighten those of us who dont know what case that is.

I googled the phrase "Supreme Court Lawrence" and had no trouble.

[iamshack]

Ok, so if a teacher tells my parents he saw me kissing a girl in the hallway, I can sue because he's invaded my privacy of sexual orientation right?

Not if he's merely reporting an action he witnessed you perform on school grounds.

 

 

[iamshack]

It IS about my sexuality.

 

Remove the public aspect of it. I'm in the same situation as this person. I'm completely asexual in public, but there's a rumor that I do in fact like women. The teachers get it out of me and tell my parents. According to this ruling I have an expectation that my sexual orientation should remain private.

And if you did not want your parents to know this, I would say you had every right for that to remain private as the subject of this case did.

[Soxbadger]

Balta,

 

I assumed he was referring to a Supreme Court case, but its unclear if this was filed in State or Federal Court. Which is why I wanted to be sure that he was referring to a Federal Case and not a State case, as I previously cited Texas State law under the assumption this case is in State Court (its unclear from article).

 

I further was confused because the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas is about sodomy laws legality, which really wouldnt be applicable to a civil cause of action for invasion of privacy, unless Im missing something.

 

Is the argument that because Lawrence said that sexual intercourse is private, any statement concerning it has to be per se invasion of privacy?

[iamshack]

Balta,

 

I assumed he was referring to a Supreme Court case, but its unclear if this was filed in State or Federal Court. Which is why I wanted to be sure that he was referring to a Federal Case and not a State case, as I previously cited Texas State law under the assumption this case is in State Court (its unclear from article).

 

I further was confused because the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas is about sodomy laws legality, which really wouldnt be applicable to a civil cause of action for invasion of privacy, unless Im missing something.

 

Is the argument that because Lawrence said that sexual intercourse is private, any statement concerning it has to be per se invasion of privacy?

The argument is that a person's sexual orientation is of a highly personal nature, even when the conduct in question is homosexual conduct. The only case which stated otherwise was Bowers v. Hardwick, which was overruled by Lawrence v. Texas.

[G&T]

Lawrence explicitly lists sexual orientation as a private right along with some others.

 

It does?

 

Lawrence is a case about sexual conduct and I don't think it is applicable here.

[iamshack]

It does?

 

Lawrence is a case about sexual conduct and I don't think it is applicable here.

The US Magistrate judge in Texas disagrees.

[G&T]

The argument is that a person's sexual orientation is of a highly personal nature, even when the conduct in question is homosexual conduct. The only case which stated otherwise was Bowers v. Hardwick, which was overruled by Lawrence v. Texas.

 

Bowers is also a sodomy case that is only tangentially related to sexual orientation. Privacy cases are really state rights cases and it is a stretch to use these SC decisions.

[StrangeSox]

The US Magistrate judge in Texas disagrees.

I'm phone-posting from a plane so I can't dig it up, but I think I already c&p'd the part of the decision that references Lawrence. I know a posted a link to the case, Wyatt v kisb, so you can find it that way, too.

[iamshack]

I'm phone-posting from a plane so I can't dig it up, but I think I already c&p'd the part of the decision that references Lawrence. I know a posted a link to the case, Wyatt v kisb, so you can find it that way, too.

This is from your earlier post:

 

Turning to the law of privacy, the Supreme Court has found under the auspices of personal

autonomy that there is a right to privacy that protects matters related to “marriage, procreation,

contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558,

573-74 (2003)(citations omitted); see also Klein Independent School Dist. v. Mattox, 830 F.2d 576,

580 (5th Cir. 1987)(citing Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 , 713 (1976))(“Under the autonomy branch

of privacy, constitutional protection has been limited to intimate personal relationships or activities,

and freedoms to make fundamental choices involving oneself, one's family, and one's relationships

with others”). Moreover, in Lawrence, the Supreme Court extended the right to privacy to include

“intimate conduct.” Lawrence, 539 US at 562. The Court cautioned against “defin[ing] the

meaning of [a] relationship or [] sett[ing] its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an

institution the law protects.” Id. at 567. Thus, the Court found “[w]hen sexuality finds overt

expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be one element in a personal

bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons