[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Privacy and presidential philandering, from the Netly News
********
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1714,00.html
The Netly News (http://netlynews.com/)
January 27, 1998
Private Parts
by Declan McCullagh ([email protected])
Already you can hear the plaintive sound of President Clinton's
partisans whining about privacy. The allegations about Will's
wandering willy are too intimate, too sensitive and (if the truth be
told) too embarrassing to be discussed publicly, they claim.
Yesterday the wire services were busy recycling Hillary Clinton's
plea for a "zone of privacy"; a Clinton defender wrote in USA Today
that nobody should be "inflicting the details of his sex life on the
public"; a piece in the New York Times complained about a "fishing
expedition into the President's sexual history." On NBC's Today show,
Hillary groused about living in "a time where people are malicious and
evil-minded."
On many electronic mailing lists, the talk nowadays seems to be of
little else. "The current pursuit of Clinton -- whatever the facts
turn out to be -- strikes me, itself, as an obscenity," griped Edward
Kent on a First Amendment list. "We need more protections of privacy
in this country." Michael Troy replied, "I don't think there is a
constitutional right to privacy for an employer (who is also a public
figure) having sex with an employee in the workplace."
He's right. The call for greater "privacy protections" is a call
for censorship in disguise.
[...]