[ltbarcly3]

Right, so some things done in private are prohibited, and others are not prohibited. So a right to privacy does not inform us whatsoever as to whether it is prohibited or not prohibited to do a thing.

In all other contexts I know of, the 4th amendment does not grant anyone rights to do things that would otherwise be illegal. It sets careful restrictions on the governments ability to investigate. In other words, the government is prohibited from doing things we consider to be a burden upon people whom the government lacks sufficient reason to suspect. However, given a sufficient reason to suspect them of a crime the government can then fulfill due process and continue in it's investigations of those suspected crimes.

So lets by very precise here. Lets take some action a person might engage in, lets call it 'throwing strings', which is just made up nonsense. To be informative here, we will say that the constitution does not have anything to say regarding throwing strings, and that state or local governments can outlaw it as they see fit. However, in the existence of a right to privacy the act of throwing strings becomes a right under the constitution.

How can a right to unreasonable search and seizure (or however other way privacy is derived) possibly create a right to openly and notoriously throw strings?

[ltbarcly3]

So I'm in a meeting and I've reloaded this comment a few times, and I see the moderation going up and down? If you down-vote this, please hit respond and let me know why, this is a good faith comment in the spirit of this thread trying to understand the issue better, or ideally have an expert in the law reply? I don't know why someone would down-vote it apart from seeing it as threatening to even be open to trying to discuss this issue?