Klarinet Archive - Posting 001111.txt from 2002/06

From: "Kevin Callahan" <kionon@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Music vs. drug testing
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 23:21:57 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Hausmann" <bhausmann1@-----.net>
Subject: RE: [kl] Music vs. drug testing

> At 11:03 PM 6/29/2002 -0400, Mark Charette wrote:
> >Considering a definition of privacy being " freedom from unauthorized
> >intrusion " I think the 4th Amendment pretty much meets that definition.
> >
> >I figure you must think everyone who exercises their 5th Amendment
privilege
> >against self-incrimination must be guilty, too.
> >
> >If not of what they're accused of, then at least guilty of something.
>
> If you have not done anything wrong, it seems to me that by definition you
> CANNOT incriminate yourself. Incriminate yourself of WHAT?

Actually, for once, you have a point. However, you cannot be made to
incriminate yourself for crimes you're not accused of. Though, Mark has a
point as well, what if the crimes are not illegal, but immoral? Say being
forced to answer would prove you had an affair with your wife's best friend,
and you don't want your wife to find out? Or similiar things. They're not
illegal, but they're private explainations that should not have to come out
if you don't want them to.

> As for "freedom from unauthorized intrusion," is that not what the fight
is
> about? Whether or not it should be authorized?

Actually the fight is over what is and what is not considered "authorized."

Kevin Callahan

---------------------------------------------------------------------

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org