Wrong - there are tons of laws that say you lose privacy when you are a public official dealing with public matters. Every state has some version of an Open Records Act, same thing with the Sunshine Laws. All of which have some version of FOI requests (Freedom of Information). The purpose behind all of these is so the public can always know what is being done on their behalf and more importantly keep the powerful from manipulating things for the benefit of their friends and themselves.
but none of this had anything to do with policymaking, and it was the texts of private citizens from fox news. laura ingraham is not a politician, she deserves the right to speak to public figures privately. is your poistion that public figure lose privacy full stop? no dirty talk with the wife?
Of course. As President of my MUD I'm also aware of the laws the great state of Texas says I have to abide by as a public official. They are the same laws the Texas legislators who passed them have to abide by. And those laws say that as a public official I have to disclose things that I wouldn't as a private person.
so if i text you after we go out drinking that after you left i fucked the secretary from work, thats public info? public figures cant store photos of their daughters on their phones, that is public?
So if George Soros sends an email to Biden and says that he is ready to fund the 'dissolve the police movement' you don't think we should know about it?
i already told you i am for privacy. please stop playing the "if it was the other way round you are a hypocrite" game. when the dissolve the police movement becomes policy, we have the right to know how it is funded. transparency is for policy makers discussing policy in official forums and communication mediums, like official email. private citizens should have the right to privacy. and public figures as well, when not acting in govt capacity. hannity and ingraham are not elected, they have opinions. they should have the right to off the record communications.
If the purpose of the fucking is to influence the publics business then the fucker, fuckee, and fuck reason are public information. Her cup size can remain private. With respect to phones - if the public paid for the phone they have a right to see how its used. Same thing with work phones actually. Anything I use the phone provided by my company for they have a right to see. If I want privacy I need to carry a second phone that I pay for. Same is true for public figures. If Mark Meadow gets an email or text on a US gov supplied phone it's part of the public information. If Mark wants privacy he should use his own phone that he pays for. IF he uses his private phone for public business he has emulated Hillary, which is a bad bad thing.
Happens all the time. I said it was the "Purpose"; I never said it was the outcome. And while it doesn't eliminate those machinations , I do believe it restrains them to some extent. Having security camera's doesn't guarantee you won't get robbed, it just means you can see who did it.
