Exactly. In this scenario the doctor is an agent of the government, and the government in my opinion is not supposed to have free speech rights. (The government is supposed to protect the free speech rights of its people, not the other way around). So he can constitutionally be prevented from asking the question, as I mentioned earlier.

The problem is that our legal system is corrupt, as I've said many times recently. The judges are agents of the government. Therefore they rule in favor of the doctors, who are also agents of the government. There is some kind of undocumented, sinister political system that controls the judicial system.

I guess I meant how is the first amendment applicable to protection of a person's right to ask a question?  I guess you are free to ask me whatever you want, but I'm free to either not respond at a minimum or tell you do [fill in choice words here].

How is freedom of speech, or say expression of views or opinions, on the same level a protection of asking questions?

Then I'll counter with:

I don't think that's what the Fourth Amendment was intended for, against a doctor asking about something irrelevant to my healthcare and generally none of his business.  But if you're expanding the first amendment, then. . .

I am saying the 1st amendment protects the doctor's right to ask. If the government is asking then yes I suppose the 4th amendment does indeed apply. Your right not to answer a doctor is just a basic un-named freedom I guess. A doctor and patient conversation is a private conversation, same as is yours and mine. I can't stop you from asking and you can't make me answer.

I am saying the 1st amendment protects the doctor's right to ask. If the government is asking then yes I suppose the 4th amendment does indeed apply. Your right not to answer a doctor is just a basic un-named freedom I guess. A doctor and patient conversation is a private conversation, same as is yours and mine. I can't stop you from asking and you can't make me answer.

That's not a given.

Gov't requires diagnosis of certain STDs be reported to the CDC by law.

Based on that, anything the government believes is in the public's interest can (must?) be shared by your doctor.

You don't have to respond. That's why Flapp and I both said that we will tell our doctors to [choice words] if we are asked those kinds of stupid questions from our doctors.

You might have read my previous post backwards. In one sentence, I took your side of things and said the doctors/judges/Eyeeatingfish are misguided. I know it is confusing because I am taking both sides in this debate. Free speech is complicated.

I reread your response.  When I read it initially, it was quickly before I had to head off somewhere. 

I didn't pick up that you were taking both sides of the issue.  Ultimately, I don't see it as any of my doctor's business, professional or private, whether or not I own guns.  Yeah, maybe in some House scenario where a specific chemical in a gun lube may cause an illness, it might be relevant. 

About the issue of doctors imposing their beliefs on the people, yeah, it happens all the time.  I would like to think that generally their guidance is for the welfare of people as a whole, but I do see many cases where that guidance was eventually proven to be misguided or even wrong. 

I am saying the 1st amendment protects the doctor's right to ask. If the government is asking then yes I suppose the 4th amendment does indeed apply. Your right not to answer a doctor is just a basic un-named freedom I guess. A doctor and patient conversation is a private conversation, same as is yours and mine. I can't stop you from asking and you can't make me answer.

I guess I was thinking about this in the context of needing "clearance" from a doctor in order to acquire firearms, which isn't exactly what the article in the OP was about. 

Yeah, in general, I guess anyone is free to ask me anything they want.  I am free to respond with "none of your damn business" or flat out not answer, or at least should be.  That's where I was thinking where a non-response to a doctors question about gun ownership could be misused. 

No, it is NOT a "Conspiracy Theory."  It's only called that when certain people want to discredit someone's knowledge/belief which doesn't conveniently have a room full of evidence to prove it true!

Comey: 'There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America'

"Even our communications with our spouses, with our clergy members, with our attorneys are not absolutely private in America,"
Comey added. "In appropriate circumstances, a judge can compel any one of us to testify in court about those very private communications."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/james-comey-privacy-cybersecurity/index.html