When you say, "X has a right to Y", a reasonable interpretation of that is, "Someone(Z) is punished if X is denied access to Y".
For example, I could say I have a right to structurally secure buildings. If the floor of the mall falls apart underneath me, I can sue them for damages for not obeying the building code. If the mall's owners refuse to pay, the police will storm their house to extract payment(and if they resist, they could be shot). The police could end up shooting someone to enforce this right.
When you say, "This commenter has a right to Penny's information", a reasonable interpretation is, "Penny or any other person declining to support this right and provide this information will be punished or hurt in some way."
It's specifically that word "right" that you used that's in question. It makes me think of "enforcement", and I don't consider the right you described to be worthy of enforcement.
You all seem to have this super bizarre belief that I was forcing someone to divulge information by saying I believed they should do it? Do you actually believe that or is this just a convenient thing to nit over?
For example, I could say I have a right to structurally secure buildings. If the floor of the mall falls apart underneath me, I can sue them for damages for not obeying the building code. If the mall's owners refuse to pay, the police will storm their house to extract payment(and if they resist, they could be shot). The police could end up shooting someone to enforce this right.
When you say, "This commenter has a right to Penny's information", a reasonable interpretation is, "Penny or any other person declining to support this right and provide this information will be punished or hurt in some way."
It's specifically that word "right" that you used that's in question. It makes me think of "enforcement", and I don't consider the right you described to be worthy of enforcement.