Something something first amendment.

First amendment only protects you from being persecuted by the government. Being ostracized, shamed and unfortunately attacked in the middle of the night by anonomous people isn’t against the first amendment.

But they are allowed to debate.

Depends on the debate. The government can’t stop them from debating. If you host a debate though, without any government affiliation, you’re not forced to let them attend. In the same way, if you own a forum on the internet, you can silence anyone you want to. The literal ONLY thing the first amendment protects against, is government persecution for speech. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how people react to said speech. Just because someone cries “Muh first amendment!” doesn’t mean you actually have to respect them. You can shame them, silence them, ostracise them. Put up billboards telling people how fucking insane they are. Take out an ad in the local newspaper to display their bullshit in an attempt to shame them into submission, tell them to go fuck themselves. If they’re in your house, you can toss them out. YOU can do whatever you want. YOU can’t breach the first amendment, only the government can.

It also doesn’t apply outside the US (there’s a whole planet out there guys) so regardless of the nuance of its construction, it isn’t relevant here anyway.

thanks @MBech@feddit.dk and @echodot@feddit.uk, I was about reply these two points and then saw your replies.

Bullshit, voyeurism is a felony in most states. Invading someone’s privacy isn’t covered by the first fucking amendment you dolt.

I answered why it’s still debatable. Debating is free speech.

anything is debatable, it doesn’t make it legal or ethical. creeping on people with hidden cameras is fucking gross and needs even more regulation.

Correct. Doctor should have his head put through the wall. Use a stud finder so you don’t miss.

What!? lol.

It’s why you can’t stop the debate. It’s not illegal to be wrong.

You don’t have a first amendment right to debate stuff here.

I do find it funny how much people hate our society’s fundamental rights and want to limit them as much as possible. AIN’T NO FUCKIN FREE SPEECH HERE. WE HATE THAT SHIT.

It’s not that. We just understand what those rights are. And what they’re not.

Fundamental rights? You don’t actually have a fundamental right to free speech, nobody has to respect that, only the US government as it pertains to their constitution. None of this applies to the first amendment because IT’S NOT THE US GOVT TRYING TO RESTRICT IT. You’re in a world-wide forum. Do you think anyone in another country gives a shit what your government thinks about your US rights? Say what you want, but literally nobody has to care what you think

Obligatory XKCD xkcd.com/1357/

Because doctor. Superior species.

What’s the difference between God and a doctor? God doesn’t think he’s a doctor.

An old chestnut and still just as true, although I originally heard it about surgeons. There’s a 19th century joke that goes “the surgery was a success but the patient died”. The focus on showing off technique to colleagues instead of being useful is part of the human condition, I suppose.

Doctors record as a way to take notes, it’s possible this guy is just an idiot. Probably a pervert though.

Sadly a number of EHRs integrate with perv glasses.

They need to ask consent for this kind of shit. At least HIPAA is real fucking clear about this shit.

Probably an idiot, possibly a pervert.

these two things are not exclusuivewhen applied to a person.

A notable number of times when a person is a pervert theyre also an idiot, just look at To Catch a Pre dator.

They also aren’t mutually inclusive.

The only time a doctor has recorded me, they asked for consent first and then the recording went into a HIPAA compliant EMR system. This doctor has done neither.

Me too, my doctor always asks. If he were to just walk in wearing pervert glasses I’d lose my shit.

Because that’s how an open society with healthy exchanges of views works. Why are we even putting up with people trying to enforce their own insecurities on everyone else?

Or: Because the overton window got moved far enough and privacy now is a privilege of wealth.

Overton is an observation, not a force of influence. It isn’t why things are. We have no choice but to investigate and review whatever beliefs and values are within that window at any given time, given our ever changing world. To respond to an idea or belief with violence or censorship, instead of discussion, is to encourage tyranny. Bad ideas should be opposed by good ideas, not silenced due to some ppls discomfort with parts of our reality.

My right to privacy in a fucking doctor’s office is not an insecurity you ass

Because some of those people are billionaire oligarchs.