[throwawaykf02]

Hasn't "Freedom of Speech" always been about public speech? You alluded to it yourself when you said "freedom or the press". I don't see what invasion of privacy has to do with freedom of speech as the constitution means it.

[snowwrestler]

And this is the crux of the matter. Technology today allows intrusions into our privacy that do not harm our ability to speak publicly.

In the 1700s, the only way for the government to read your papers was to take them away from you--harming your use of them.

Today they can extract the entire contents without disturbing your use at all. Reading and restriction have been separated.

It's a new situation and there will be big fights as the law catches up. This is not historically unprecedented though; technology has frequently caused disruptions in the law. That's how copyright came about, for instance--the printing press meant that original content was no longer protected by the need to hire 100 monks to make a copy.

[bengrunfeld]

I completely disagree. Please see my response below, and failing that, search Wikipedia for "Freedom of Speech", and then search the page (Cmd + F) for "privacy".

[snowwrestler]

We don't disagree, I think you are reacting to my post without actually reading it.

I'm not advocating that what's happening is ok. I'm talking about the physical act of speech, not the cultural or psychological aspects. I agree with you on those.

It's just that in the 1700s, if you were working on a newsletter or pamphlet (like, say, a Federalist Paper), your draft would be on paper in your home. If the government wanted to read it, they had to come to your home and seize it, in which case you don't have it anymore. Your speech is directly prevented in a physical way.

Today, your draft might be stored a server that is owned and operated by a 3rd party. The government does not need to come to your home to read it. In fact you would have no clue that it was accessed at all. You could go on with your life and publish as though the access never happened.

Am I saying this is OK or right? No. It just is.

[lukifer]

The 1st Amendment also includes freedom of assembly. The ability of the state to know who is privately associating with whom conflicts with the 1st and 14th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Ad...

[bengrunfeld]

I believe that you can't truly speak freely when you don't have any privacy.

This from Wikipedia - Freedom of Speech:

"Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech where the medium of expression is the Internet. Freedom of information may also refer to the right to privacy in the context of the Internet and information technology. As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognised human right and freedom of information acts as an extension to this right."

[throwawaykf02]

I looked through that wikipedia article as well as citations and related articles, but I can't see any logical connection between freedom of speech and right to privacy. Even though the passage mentions both in adjacent sentences, there is no logical relation. The only possible connection is that speech could be made over the Internet, and privacy could be affected by the Internet, which is tenuous at best.

There is something to be said about anonymity (or lack thereof) and free speech, but I believe anonymous free speech was never a guaranteed right -- the courts always tried to balance the right to anonymous free expression with other rights, such as the rights of those who might be harmed by that expression (e.g. in cases of defamation, fraud, etc.)