The Right to Know v The Right to Privacy

The Aberdeen American News ran an interesting “Our Voice” column recently.

Here is an excerpt:

A judge has decided the person who donated $750,000 to an anti-abortion referendum can remain anonymous. The state should continue efforts to bring this name to light and protect the public's right to know.

 

It is ironic that today’s abortion rights came about because proponents believed that the right to privacy was incredibly important. Indeed, in Griswold V. Connecticut,  we were assured that the right to privacy was protected by the first amendment. Here is Justice Douglas giving the opinion of the Court:

In other words, the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.  The right of "association," like the right of belief (Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624), is more than the right to attend a meeting; it includes the right to express one's attitudes or philosophies by membership in a group or by affiliation with it or by other lawful means. Association in that context is a form of expression of opinion; and while it is not expressly included in the First Amendment its existence is necessary in making the express guarantees fully meaningful.

 

So, while the constitution might not have explicitly guaranteed this pro-lifer the right to privacy, it is not hard to imagine that such a right emanated from Douglas’s penumbra.  Does the right to know now trump the right to privacy? If so, perhaps Griswold ought to be reversed.

Comments

[caheidelberger]

I'm thinking about this. Would your suggested position on privacy mean you would overturn campaign finance rules requiring the "paid for by" statements on ads?

[William]

When judges rule by "penumbras" rather than the rule of law, logical inconsistencies are inevitable.

[Miranda Flint]

Cory: If ads are paid for by individuals, I can certainly see their privacy being protected by the penumbra. If sponsorship is corporate, it might not, as corporations do not always have the same protections as individuals.

William: Very well put. I agree with you.