Opinion ID: 2572480
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Prosecution in this Case Violate Poe's Right to Privacy?

Text: Relying upon Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969), Poe argues that his conduct in this case was protected by his right to privacy because he made the statements while he was either in his home or on his front porch. In Stanley v. Georgia , the United States Supreme Court created a right of privacy to legalize the possession of pornographic materials in one's own home. As the Supreme Court stated in Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 108, 110 S.Ct. 1691, 1695-96, 109 L.Ed.2d 98, 108 (1990), however, the Stanley case was a narrow holding, and it should not be read too broadly. In Osborne, the Supreme Court held that such right of privacy did not extend to the possession of child pornography, and in United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L.Ed.2d 500 (1973), the Court held that such right of privacy did not include the right to import pornography into this country even if it was intended to be for private use in one's own home. Poe argues that a constitutional right of privacy should protect the use of vulgar, profane, or indecent language in one's own home. That is not the issue in this case, however. The issue is whether a right of privacy should be created to shield the use of fighting words in or around one's own home. Although the United States Supreme Court has found rights of privacy to legalize several categories of conduct, there is nothing in either Stanley v. Georgia or in any of its other opinions that would indicate the Court believes that the use of fighting words in or around one's own home should be constitutionally protected. With the legitimate concern for the levels of domestic violence that exist in society, we are not persuaded that the Supreme Court would hold that fighting words directed at another who is in or around the speaker's home should be protected by a right of privacy.