Privacy

The Constitution did not grant rights; it recognized and codified them. I believe it does recognize a right to privacy. I picked both same and more limited. A minor's rights should be the same as everyone else with a very few exceptions, all of which would apply to their guardians.

I believe that the Constitution's restrictions apply only to the government (including, thanks to the 14th amendment, state and local governments, and by extension public schools). The constitutional "right to privacy" does not protect against violations by private citizens; this is the realm of common law, and a minor does not ordinarily have standing to lodge a complaint against his or her parents.

I think it's necessary, when you have a situation when one person is in the care of another, that the person being taken care of obviously (from a purely practical perspective) has more limited privacy than they might otherwise. They could be a minor, or an elderly person who can't care for themselves anymore, or a severely mentally or physically handicapped person, or a very ill person; I'm sure there are other examples. I'm not sure that it's appropriate for the law to try to define exact what privacy rights people in all these situations have, because the situations vary and the needs vary. I do think that people in general have a basic need for a certain amount of privacy, which varies by person and situation. I suspect that dealing with abuses of this kind of relationship needs to be done on a more case-by-case basis, but there probably are some general principles that could be extracted and codified by law.
I think it's inappropriate for anyone to read anyone else's diary without permission regardless of the situation between the two people. I would like the Constitution to have stated an explicit right to privacy but it didn't, and I'm not sure what implicit rights it grants; I'm still working on that one.

the 'right to privacy' does apply to minors, to a limited drgree.. I think parents (or legal guardians) have the right to invade it, but they shouldn't just do so arbitrarily. basically, It should be like the officers of the law, meaning reasonable suspicion...

No one has a right to privacy. There is no amendment to the Constitution of the United States granting such. Perhaps other countries have it, but we don't. There are laws which have been passed by Congress in support of privacy; but laws only grant privileges in the United States, they do not grant rights. Only an amendment to the Constitution can grant a right. There is an amendment granting safety from unreasonable searches and seizures, but that is entirely different from privacy.

I think minors should have rights to privacy too, but police officers should only invade it if/when there is reasonable suspicion; I don't think an officer should have the right to just invade a minors privacy for no reason. Also, adults in charge should have the right to invade the privacy of a minor to a certain extent. Legal guardians as well, and only to a certain extent that is decently acceptable. Yes, a diary should be able to be read, but only if there's a purpose to it (i.e., if the said minor is suspected of a crime, and the diary could prove him/her innocent or guilty or could be used as evidence). Other than that, the minors should have the same rights as adults. Also, the "minor" rule should apply only to a certain extent. It seems unreasonable to grant a five year old the rights of privacy of an adult. I think we should give the name "minor" to older minors, starting around the age of ten or twelve, just to be sensible.

***nbarone--"liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are not mentioned in the Constitution. (That's the Declaration of Independence.)

I'm not sure anyone has a "Constitutionally granted" right to privacy.

The US Constitution doesn't grant any rights, it recognizes pre-existing rights and prohibits the government from infringing on them. The Constitution grants authority to the government to invade your privacy in certain, limited ways.

I don't think anyone has the right to read anyone else's diary. That's something that just isn't right. I know that if my parents read my diary(hah, like they could find it) I would never speak to either of them again except to maybe tell them that I'd never speak to them again. ***RatQueen: I agree about minors being an age group starting @ 10 or 12, like you said, there's no point in 5 year olds having privacy, they don't know what it is!

privacy is an innate need.

The Constitution does not discriminate due to age & neither should we. If I were the parent of a teen (my children are now adults) that I was quite concerned about, I would probably 'snoop' a little. I might not go into their personal things, but I might start checking up on them & their friends. I was fortunate, my children really didn't give me any problems to speak of.

I couldn't find an appropriate response for me in the listed choices. I feel everyone deserves the right to privacy, the only acception being when the parent feels there is honestly a reason to be concerned about the minor's safety or well being (if minor exhibited all the signs of drug abuse and asking the minor about it resulted in denial, I would feel comfortable monitoring his/her actions more closely). It would never entered my mind to read one of my children's diaries. .....I'd like to see a survey similar to this using "spouse" rather than "minor". It would be interesting to see how many people feel it's ok to go through someone else's purse or wallet.

I think adults have a full right to privacy. Minors have a different version of it, in the sense that in schools (and perhaps schools alone) adults can do searches to make sure there aren't any weapons. But other than that? I don't even agree that parents should go through reading diaries and such. Mine did and it STILL annoys me (what, 10 years later). I would never do that to my own son. I trust him and can talk to him. Sure, he's 9. When he's 15, if he doesn't want to tell me something, and I go reading his journals, he'll simply stop keeping journals which is a dumb way to help a kid out.

Minors are not 'free citizens' ... as a parent, I have certain responsibilities which might involve revoking my child's privacy. I am legally responsible for said child and often bear the consequences of my child's actions. Look in recent current events for accidental shootings, etc. Besides, I go into my son's room just to rescue the socks that get trapped underneath the bed ... I don't video tape him as he sleeps. (i wonder what inspired this question)

i believe that the constitution does imply a right to privacy, in that i don't see how one can have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness without it. if anyone has a legal right to know any fact about me, my ability to live my life the way i want to is severely restricted.

as for minors, i believe that they should have the same right to privacy as adults, with one exception. i don't believe it would be right for anyone to be legally responsible for another person if they weren't entitled to know everything that that person did. therefore a child's legal guardian, parent or otherwise, should have a legal right to look into any aspect of their child's life, and should be informed of anything important that will affect the child (e.g. surgery, etc.). not that a parent SHOULD be prying into their kids diary, but they should have a legal right to do so if circumstances call for it.

****steve - doh! yeah, i knew that was from the declaration. i was probably thinking of the bit in the preamble to the constitution which says something about securing the right of liberty for all its citizens

I think one of the flaws of discussing this in this forum is the lack of a definition of privacy. Is it a right to go in your room and lock your door and not have anyone else come in and do what you want there? Is it a right to have your own thoughts? Is it a right to have a foot of space around you at all times? Is it a right to do what you want with your own life? Is a sense of modesty equivalent to a sense of privacy? What is it that we're talking about. And what is a minor? I liked Phi's points a lot, btw.

I think this survey begs an interesting question regarding all sorts of rights of minors, which I will attempt to fashion into a survey RSN... OK, I did.

Violation of a minor's "right to privacy" should be treated with the same concern as an adult's - only do so in extreme circumstances, and then only after careful consideration. For people (whether minors or not) to learn to respect such things, they need to be granted the same respect.

I don't believe in the diary-reading, telephone conversation-listing invasion of privacy. But with all that is going on in the schools (drugs, guns, shootings, etc), a breach in the right to privacy is necessary. It can save lives.

Geez... what a bewildering array of answers! Some comments: The constitution explicitly grants certain rights to privacy (e.g. search-and-seizure) but not others; I don't read any generic "right to privacy" implicit in it. WRTminors, the principle I believe should be adopted is that until someone is "adult" enough to handle their own interests, a competant guardian is selected to do it for them; the minor has the same protections as said guardian, but not from the guardian. E.g., I get to search my kids' stuff legally but other people don't, unless they could search my stuff legally too. Natch, all kinds of hairy issues arise with respect to determining competence (both the minor's and the gurardian's). I accept "in loco parentis" (e.g., principals) as well, though I'd prefer to restrict it as much as possible. Reading a diary is a bizarre example. ***later thoughts: I agree with hunter about "privacy" being ill-defined, as for that matter is "right" (evidenced by the varying interpretations of the term in people's answers).

***Resy - actually this survey was inspired by some debate on whether or not minors should have the right to get an abortion without parental notification ... I considered making a survey of that, but thought this was more fundamental and I'd ask this first, then the other if I thought there would be enough to say on the subject...

***Hunter/Dpolicar - Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was referring to the "right to privacy" which various judges have said is implicit to the Constitution in some of their judgments. I agree that it is ambiguous, nonetheless, I wanted to know what people thought about it.

Regarding the first option: I don't care about the constitution. We should make our own decisions, and if need be, make an amendment if the constitution doesn't support our ideas. We shouldn't be chained to the opinions of men who lived hundreds of years ago in a completely different society, who couldn't possibly anticipate ours.

Hmmmm... that's difficult to answer. I think only legal guardians (usually parents) can do it. But even in this case, only if there is a risk for the minor.