COM 0314.036 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SEPTEMBER 9, 1978 633 to know that ovr own private affairs will remain ours--unless [here is a compelling state interest, unless we are participating in criminal activities or have relinquished our right to remain and keep our affairs private. And for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would speak against this amendment. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Delegate Waihee. Is [here further discussion on this subject? Delegate Barnes is recognized. i ~ DELEGATE BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of [his amendment, although not strongly. I believe there should be balance in our constitutional provisions, and obviously the right to know and the right to privacy stand opposed to each other, i for one reason. I Since we have just taken a decision not to include a right to know provision, then I think, before we include further language other than what's in the Constitution on the right to privacy, we should careflIIly scrutinize this language. Will it help us? If you look at page 7 of the standing committee report, third paragraph, we're given three ex- amples of how this right might help. "For example, the right can be used to protect an individual from invasion of his private affairs"; if a court, for example, were to find out whether this was an invasion oP private affairs, they could also go to trespass laws-- the existing law preventing someone from coming on your propeity--or liable or slander ~ laws for the next two examples--"public disclosure of embarrassing facts, and publicity placing the individual in a false light." In other words, if a newspaper reporter chooses to print an article about one of us delegates here, we have chosen to place ourselves in the public realm, so this isn't going to help--[his right to privacy--we can't go and stop that article about us from being printed. But what we do have available are liable and slander laws and the case law existing there. ~ So, in my analysis I don't see that this language is going to directly help us in any way. We'll still have to turn back to the existing law, Not wanting to add extra words ~ to the Constitution, I would speak in favor of the amendment. j CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Delegate Barnes. The Chair recognizes Delegate Souki.ll DELEGATE SODKI: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak for the amendment, and the reason is that I believe in Section 5 oPArticle I there is sufficient language to protect I the privacy of the citizens of the State. I believe this new amendment will be somewhat redundant and might in fact cause some unanticipated problems, as [he "compelling state interest" can be interpreted adversely. Also I think the concept is very beautiful and I--by the former Mauian by his poetic method in describing the rationale and need for such an amendment, I would be almost tempted to vote for that and buy that particular concept. However, I believe that if we are to pursue [hat--and I think we should--i[ would be better done by statute, simply ~I'i following the existing language in the Constitution that the right to privacy shall not ;~I be violated, and then through statute expand on this particular style [o provide us the future privacy that we're going to need. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Delegate Souki. The Chair recognises Delegate Hale. II DELEGATE HALE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like [o speak against this amendment. The 1968 amendment wes dealing primarily in the area of wiretapping and eavesdropping it and made it possible--as I understand it--for government to go [o court to get permission to do this. And they had to get permission. My understanding of this right to privacy is that it embraces other things, and I think [he committee report has a very full expla- nation on page 8: "For example, it has been held that society has no legitimate interest in the hairstyle of a person attending a public educational institution." But I can recall the days when students were sent home--boys particularly--if their hair was below their ears. I can also recall the days of the dress code, when you couldn't go to a public edu- cational institution without wearing certain kinds of clothing. It seems to me that we have so much regulation of our lives, that we have to look to the future as we get more and more regulation of our lives, that there certainly have I to be some basic freedomsthat we as individuals are going to have to protect. And