[Supermancho]

> Your analogy doesn't hold.

It does, in the US. You're likely making an inconsistent comparison.

Property ownership has nothing to do with visual access. You cannot legally be barred from casually (involuntarily) perceiving something. It's reasonable to put up physical barriers to reduce what is casually perceived. It's a very good analogy.

[munk-a]

However it doesn't hold - as your neighbor I can't bar you from putting up a fence because it'll intrude on my view of your property... granted people try to do that _all the time_ but I think it's commonly understood that putting up a fence for privacy is allowed.

It's also not a great analogy for this case because another party is given continued easy access to view my backyard while the first party is denied - and the analogy breaks down here because, as a neighbor, I have no inherent right to view your private life at least as much as any of your other neighbors.

[Supermancho]

> it's commonly understood that putting up a fence for privacy is allowed.

Try building that fence into the stratosphere. A regulatory body will prevent that.

> I have no inherent right to view your private life at least as much as any of your other neighbors.

That's a different analogy, not a violation of the first.

It's not necessary for every part of the analogy to hold, being an analogy.