to vote or running for office, and to discharge a good citizen’s duty to appear as a witness without fear of unnecessary embarrassment. But there is no reason either to encourage him to commit another crime or to believe that the legislature intended to do so. Gosnell, 284 Ark. at 301, 681 S.W.2d at 387 (emphasis in original). This court’s opinion ignores our supreme court’s unambiguous explanation in Gosnell that the expungement statute addresses only the restoration of civil liberties to a rehabilitated felon. There is no civil right of privacy for criminal activity, and an expungement order does not privatize criminal activity. See Eagle v. Morgan, 88 F.3d 620 (8th Cir. Ark. 1996); see also Stidham v. Peace Officer Standards and Training, 265 F.3d 1144 (10th Cir. Utah 2001) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, Arkansas Code Annotated. §
holding that new york law has no common law right of privacy embracmg such claims as false light as any such privacy right is purely statutory holding that a validly enacted law places citizens on notice that violations thereof do not fall into the realm of privacy and criminal activity is thus not protected by the right to privacy holding that even where the underlying complaint made no mention of the right of privacy a violation of privacy  is implicit in a tcpa faxad claim holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records holding that while an individual has a right to possess obscene material in the privacy of his home there is no corresponding privacy right to purchase such material