The Journaling of Hinton 389

Oftentimes, the Court is confronted with the issue: Which right demands greater protection, the right to privacy or the freedom of expression or of the press? The so called balancing-of-interest doctrine gives the court the prerogative which right demands greater protection. This doctrine requires a court to take conscious consideration of the interplay of interest observable in a given situation. When expression touches upon matters of private concern, privacy right is paramount than freedom of expression. There are other rules or limitations upon the freedom of expression, it must however, be stressed that the Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review is not precluded from applying the appropriate rule in a given case. In short, a case will have to be decided with openness. On which rule to apply is a matter of judicial discretion. The protection of fundamental liberties is the essence of constitutional democracy. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are primarily directed against the abuses of the government in the exercise of its massive powers.

When the court ruled proscription against unlawful searches and seizures, it is directed only against the government and its agencies that are tasked with the enforcement of the laws and not against private persons. Directly interlaced with the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures is the right of communication and correspondence. This provision of the Constitution strengthens the privacy of men which must remain inviolable. The freedom of correspondence extends to convey one's views and sentiments. A court cannot order a lawyer to disclose or divulge matters belonging to his client which is a breach of the confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship. In the same way, a medical practitioner cannot impart to anybody the health record of a person without his permission. If so judicially decreed however, the privilege of communication and correspondence may be violated. The right of the people to be let alone can also be invoked by the government. The President can invoke executive privilege in keeping his officials from testifying at legislative inquiry or the court, even if subpoenaed. The Judiciary in protecting its interest and in maintaining public order may ban press people inside a courtroom. Content has been created by Essay Writers.

Court proceedings before a camera may provoke passion and violence thus, risk the security of the justices and the court personnel. However, critics of the camera ban advocate that the public has the right to access to information; that, the right to privacy of the justices should not come before the interest of the whole nation. The right to free speech and the press is the body and soul of man without which his existence becomes empty and meaningless. Like the right to life, the right to judge public matters and concerns is important to guard to the uttermost the right to free speech and the press. The people therefore, have a duty to maintain such right, either verbally or through publication their guileless condemnations of the acts of government. If the State through fear and threats could silence the voices of the people regarding the conduct of the government, the people might as well say goodbye to the rule of law and democracy. Freedom of the press and expression will be rendered useless unless the media are given free access to information on matters of public concern.

This is their duty to the public and the people. Access to official records, papers and documents concerning government transactions and decisions and their accountabilities shall not be denied to citizens subject to limitations as may be provided by law. The Constitution mandates that access to public information must not be denied a person. While freedom of expression is sacred, it is however, neither a license nor is it illimitable. The Constitutional provisions on freedom of speech and of the press do not permit the publications and utterances of libelous, indecent articles or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation. Media is not allowed to make public personal matters about a person without his consent. A person's private reputation is as much entitled to the protection of the law as to express one's thought freely. Likewise, the existence of government is entitled to protection against seditious attacks. There is right to publish the truth but the right to publish falsehood to the injury of others cannot be allowed. Truth however, does not justify publication of morally reprehensible items inconsistent to public order and concern.

2. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office. 3. Congress (past, present and future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. 4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do. Most Americans no longer have any chance of receiving a traditional pension. Politicians, whose pensions are paid by the very people who no longer can get a pension, should not be entitled to something most Americans can not receive. 5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3% but only if the voters agree that they are doing a good job. This approach requires that the political class actually be successful in their job before getting rewarded, much like the plight of most working Americans.