I'm curious about this part of your argument.
It seems to imply that the only relevant framework for analyzing this issue is the privacy angle.
If that's actually the point you're making, how would you justify it?
Especially when AFAICT it's pitting two apparent goods, privacy and free speech, against each other?
I'm curious about this part of your argument.
It seems to imply that the only relevant framework for analyzing this issue is the privacy angle.
If that's actually the point you're making, how would you justify it?
Especially when AFAICT it's pitting two apparent goods, privacy and free speech, against each other?