Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court Limits the Right to Privacy

1986 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 894
Author(s):  
Gary S. Caplan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

scholarly journals The Case Fontevecchia and D’amico Against Argentina

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 179-190
Author(s):  
Everson Alexandre de Assumpção
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Right

This scientific article was based on a case study, judged by the Argentine Supreme Court. In this process, the author filed a civil action in the civil court to compensate the damage against the authors, understanding that the right to privacy, privacy, honor and image rights were violated. The article sought to analyze the collision of principles, rules, rights and jurisprudence that led the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to rule in favor of Jorge Fontevecchia and Heitor D’amico. These were condemned by the Argentine State for understanding that there was a violation of the Right to Privacy. However, the international court decided to revoke the judgment passed and judged by the Supreme Court of the Argentine Nation, understanding that Fontevechia and D’amigo did not violate the Right to Freedom of Expression, making the action illegal and, therefore, forcing the Argentine State to withdraw the action and also to promote the due reparation of the damages caused to the. On February 14, 2017, the Argentine State rejected the decision of the Inter-American Court, transforming this case into one of the most famous “leading cases” of Argentine international public law. Finally, on October 18, 2017, the International Court issued another resolution to render the sentence in the Fontevecchia y D’Amico case ineffective. It was concluded, therefore, that even with the Argentine constitutional reform of 1994 and the granting of a constitutional hierarchy to international human rights standards, it was defined that the rules of international treaties “do not derogate from the provisions of the first part of the Argentine Constitution” under the terms of article 75, item 22, but attributed to the international treaties a character of complementarity, in addition to the prohibition, provided for in article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to invoke reasons of domestic law for non-compliance in order to comply with international obligations. For the preparation of this scientific article, the deductive method and qualitative and descriptive research were used. As bibliographic references were used published materials, scientific literature, Law and Jurisprudence that were relevant to the purposes discussed here.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Ret'd) and Anr v. Union of India and Ors

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (4) ◽  
pp. 994-1000
Author(s):  
Menaka Guruswamy
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
National Database ◽  
Demographic Information ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
Fundamental Freedom ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

On August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court of India issued a rare, unanimous nine-judge decision holding that the right to privacy is protected by the Constitution of India. The case is all the more noteworthy because the Court reversed its prior decisions holding that the right to privacy was not protected by the country's Constitution. It arose out of the government's creation of a national database of biometric and demographic information for every Indian. Rejecting the government's arguments, the Court found that the right to privacy applies across the gamut of “fundamental” rights including equality, dignity (Article 14), speech, expression (Article 19), life, and liberty (Article 21). The six separate and concurring judgments in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Ret'd) and Anr v. Union of India and Ors are trailblazing for their commitment to privacy as a fundamental freedom and for the judges’ use of foreign law across jurisdictions and spanning centuries.

scholarly journals Privacy in the Age of the Internet: Lawful Access Provisions and Access to ISP and OSP Subscriber Information

2016 ◽  
pp. 709
Author(s):  
Graham Mayeda
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Privacy And Security ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Section 8 ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
C 30 ◽  
The Right

Bill C-30 (the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act) and the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act are two recent attempts by the Canadian government to create incentives for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Online Service Providers (OSPs) to disclose the subscriber information of Internet users to government agencies. In this article, the author argues that while such provisions may not violate section 8 of the Charter based on current judicial interpretation, they ought to be found unconstitutional. To date, the Supreme Court of Canada’s search and seizure jurisprudence uses a normative framework that does not distinguish between defining the right to privacy and justifying limitations to it. This approach is not consistent with that taken for other Charter rights. The recent decisions of the Supreme Court in R v. Spencer and R v. Fearon may signal a slight shift, but they do not go far enough. If courts defined privacy interests more broadly than under current law and required the government to justify restrictions on these interests under section 1, this would create a legal regime that achieves a better balance between competing privacy and security interests.

CHANGING PERSPECTIVES OF SUPREME COURT INTERPRETATION ON RIGHT TO PRIVACY-WITH SPECIAL CONTEXT TO AADHAAR

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-61
Author(s):  
R. Mangayarkarasi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Frame Work ◽  
Entire World ◽  
The Right

The term privacy is considered to be the crucial term in our society which has emerged recently and our society has witnessed this term for the past few years. In the recent times, there has been numerous debates on the concept of right to privacy i.e. whether our constitution guarantees the right to privacy and its reasonable restrictions, its non-recognition by some courts and this right has been recognized by the other courts. Alot of Indian jurists has thought whether Art.21 which guarantees right to life includes right to privacy also. But there is no clear cut legal or theoretical frame work to help us in this context. According to Clinton Rossiter privacy is a special king of independence, which can be understood as an attempt to secure autonomy in at least a few personal and spiritual concerns, if necessary in deance of all the pressures of modern society. It is an attempt that is to say to do more than maintain a posture of self-respecting independence toward other men; it seeks to erect an unbreakable wall of dignity and reserve against the entire world. This paper deals with the concept of privacy and the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and Supreme court interpretation on different case laws related to right to privacy in India.

Cow Vigilantism and India’s Evolving Human Rights Framework

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravindra Pratap
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Food And Nutrition ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Rights Issues ◽  
Human Right To Food

AbstractThe paper seeks to understand India’s evolving rights framework in the backdrop of cow vigilantism. To that end it discusses the human right to food and nutrition, international discussion on minority rights issues in India and the relevant legal and constitutional discussion in India. It finds that India’s rights framework has evolved since proclamation of India as a Republic in 1950 based on the supremacy of its written constitution containing fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy interpreted finally by its Supreme Court. The government took a wise step by not challenging a judicial rebalancing of the rights framework in response to certain executive measures and the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life to include not only the right to the choice of food but also the right to privacy and thereby underscored the obligation of the State to compensate the victims of cow vigilante violence. However, a constitutional polity and secular state would do all well if it did any further necessary to better guard against any recurrence of the breach of civil peace, much less violence, on purely secular issues, including by strengthening and increasing dialogue with all representative communities in all its decision-making on such matters.

Roe v. Wade

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Ziegler
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Family Health ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Party Realignment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
To Come ◽  
The Right ◽  
Roe V Wade

Decided by the Supreme Court in 1973, Roe v. Wade legalized abortion across the United States. The 7-2 decision came at the end of a decades-long struggle to reform—and later repeal—abortion laws. Although all of the justices understood that Roe addressed a profoundly important question, none of them imagined that it would later become a flashpoint of American politics or shape those politics for decades to come. Holding that the right to privacy covered a woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy, Roe and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, struck down many of the abortion regulations on the books. The lead-up to and aftermath of Roe tell a story not only of a single Supreme Court decision but also of the historical shifts that the decision shaped and reflected: the emergence of a movement for women’s liberation, the rise of grassroots conservatism, political party realignment, controversy about the welfare state, changes to the family structure, and the politicization of science. It is a messy and complicated story that evolved parallel to different ideas about the decision itself. In later decades, Roe arguably became the best-known opinion issued by the Supreme Court, a symbol of an ever-changing set of beliefs about family, health care, and the role of the judiciary in American democracy.

The Norwegian Supreme Court and Strasbourg: The Case of Lillo-Stenberg and Sæther v. Norway

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 1293-1305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnfinn Bårdsen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
Performing Artists ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Do So

This article attempts to give a brief overview as to the interplay between the Norwegian Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I will do so partly on a general footing and partly connected to a couple of specific cases. In particular, I will comment on the 16 January 2014 judgment from the Strasbourg Court in the Case of Lillo-Stenberg and Sæther v. Norway. This case involved an alleged violation of the right to privacy according to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), by publishing pictures from the wedding of a well-known couple-both performing artists-in a weekly magazine, without their consent.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document