[thrownaway2424]

That logic isn't obviously correct. People do not have a right to go about in public, to and from notorious places, in a 2-ton death monster that requires licensure and indemnification to operate, anonymously. People requiring a higher degree of privacy than that offered by cars would be better served taking their bicycles.

[nitrogen]

I would argue that a de facto right to privacy is created by the nature of the destination. It doesn't matter if someone can see you or your car, the fact that it's a medical destination should create a right to privacy of that trip.

[mpyne]

> It doesn't matter if someone can see you or your car, the fact that it's a medical destination should create a right to privacy of that trip.

So what you're saying is that the government should enforce a built-in gag order on people? Interesting...

[nitrogen]

> It doesn't matter if someone can see you or your car, the fact that it's a medical destination should create a right to privacy of that trip.

So what you're saying is that the government should enforce a built-in gag order on people? Interesting...

They already do with regard to medical information, in the form of HIPAA. A right to privacy has to include the right to prevent others from disclosing certain kinds of information about oneself. You could also consider it from a defamation/slander/libel perspective.

[mpyne]

> They already do with regard to medical information, in the form of HIPAA.

HIPAA type records are not publically displayed when people walk outside.

To the extent that a given condition is public people are allowed to note that. This is why assholes were legally allowed to call me pimple-face, for instance.

[nitrogen]

HIPAA type records are not publically displayed when people walk outside.

No, but there are some things that ostensibly take place in public but should still be considered private, absent some urgently pressing higher need that can only be met by disclosure.

To the extent that a given condition is public people are allowed to note that. This is why assholes were legally allowed to call me pimple-face, for instance.

At some point of excess, wouldn't that fall under verbal abuse, harassment, or bullying, depending on whether you're considering laws or school policies, and thus not be considered free speech?

In general I believe people should be able to say anything they want, but if what they say or to whom they say it violates someone else's rights, their victims shouldn't have to put up with it.

[mpyne]

> At some point of excess, wouldn't that fall under verbal abuse, harassment, or bullying, depending on whether you're considering laws or school policies, and thus not be considered free speech?

Perhaps. But should that point come the speech will lose protection because it is abusive, harassing, or bullying nature. Not because it describes my medical condition.

[thrownaway2424]

I would argue that your moon-man jurisprudence is weird.