text stringlengths 0 118 |
|---|
Columbia) s 1(1); Privacy Act CCSM s P125 (Manitoba) s 2(1). |
205. Jeanne M. Hauch, “Protecting Private Facts in France: The Warren & |
Brandeis Tort Is Alive and Well and Flourishing in Paris,” 68 Tulane Law Revirw |
1219,1222,1231-32 (1994). |
206. Jorge A. Vargas, “Privacy Rights Under Mexican Law: Emergence and |
Legal Configuration of a Panoply of New Rights,” 27 Houston Journal o f Interna |
tional Law 73, 111 (2004). |
207. Hosking v. Runting, [2005] 1 NZLR 1, [117]. |
208. Cap. 217, 9-8, quoted in D.S. Choi & S.C. Park, “Korea,” in International |
Libel and Privacy Handbook 7-1, 7-2 (Charles J. Glasser, Jr., ed., 2006). |
209. Lawrence W. Beer, “Freedom of Expression: The Continuing Revolution,” |
53 Law and Contemporary Problems 36, 54-55 (1990); see also Serge Gutwirth, Pri |
vacy and the Information Age 26 (Raf Casert trans., 2002). |
Notes to Pages 142-145 |
235 |
210. Dan Rosen, “Private Lives and Public Eyes: Privacy in the United States |
and Japan,” 6 Florida Journal o f International Law 141, 153 (1990). |
211. Eugene Volokh, “Freedom of Speech and Information Privacy: The Trou |
bling Implications of a Right to Stop People from Speaking About You,” 52 Stan |
fo rd Law Review 1049, 1050-51 (2000); see also Thomas I. Emerson, The System o f |
Freedom o f Expression 556 (1970) (“[T]he right of privacy depends upon guaran |
teeing an individual freedom from intrusion and freedom to think and believe, not |
freedom from discussion of his opinions, actions or affairs”). |
212. Richard A. Posner, The Economics o f Justice 271 (1981). |
213. Warren & Brandeis, “Right to Privacy,” 210-11. |
214. See Daniel J. Solove, “The Virtues of Knowing Less: Justifying Privacy |
Protections Against Disclosure,” 53 D uke Law Journal 967, 990-92 (2003). |
215. Cohen, “Right to Read Anonymously,” 1012-13. |
216. 816 A.2d 1001, 1008 (N.H. 2003). |
217. Diane L. Zimmerman, “Requiem for a Heavyweight: A Farewell to Warren |
and Brandeis’s Privacy Tort,” 68 Cornell Law Review 291, 334 (1983). |
218. See, e.g., Kathleen Guzman, “About Outing: Public Discourse, Private |
Lives,” 73 Washington U niversity Law Q uarterly 1531, 1568 (1995) (“Outers offer |
up the victim as a ‘sacrificial lamb’ to portray themselves as purifying redeemers, |
able to solve the problems of discrimination”). |
219. John P. Elwood, “Outing, Privacy, and the First Amendment,” 102 Yale Law |
Journal 747, 773 (1992) (“Even under the best of circumstances, the relationship |
between outing a particular figure and effecting a societal change is simply too at |
tenuated to override the outing target’s privacy rights”). |
220. John D’Emilio & Estelle B. Freedman, Intim ate M atters: A H istory o f Sexu |
ality in Am erica 285-86 (2d ed. 1997). |
221. See J. Rosen, U nwanted Gaze, 200 (“[Cjhanges in media technology have |
increased the risk of mistaking information for knowledge”); Lawrence Lessig, |
“Privacy and Attention Span,” 89 Georgetown Law Journal 2063, 2068-69 (2001) |
(arguing that access to limited amounts of information only “creates the impres |
sion of knowledge”); Solove, “Virtues,” 1037 (“Much misunderstanding occurs be |
cause of the disclosure of private information”). |
222. See Solove, “Virtues,” 1041—43 (describing the stigma attached to those |
with certain diseases and illnesses). |
223. U.S. Dep’t of Health, Educ., & Welfare, Records, 112. |
224. Cefalu v. Globe Newspaper Co., 391 N.E.2d 935,939 (Mass. App. Cl 1979). |
225. 469 N.E.2d 1025, 1028 (Ohio Cl App. 1984) (quoting Jackson v. Playboy |
Enters., 574 F. Supp. 10, 13 (S.D. Ohio 1983)). |
226. 201 Cal. Rptr. 665, 666, 669 (Cl App. 1984). |
227. Duran v. Detroit News, Inc., 504N.W.2d 715, 720 (Mich. Cl App. 1993) |
(finding her identity to be “open to the public eye” because her work in Colombia |
had been disclosed in newspaper articles, and because she had occasionally used |
her real name in the United States); see also Fisher v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & |
Com, 578 N.E.2d 901, 903 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1988) (holding that the disclosure of a |
public conversation between a plaintiff and her fellow employees was not a privacy |
violation). |
228. Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 244 Cal. Rptr. 556, 561 (Ct. App. |
1988); see also Multimedia WMAZ, Inc. v. Kubach, 443 S.E.2d 491, 500 (Ga. Ct. |
236 |
Notes to Pages 145-148 |
App. 1994) (finding that the plaintiff’s disclosure of his infection status to family, |
friends, and members of an HIV support group did not render the information |
public); Y.G. v. Jewish Hosp., 795 S.W.2d 488, 500 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990) (holding |
that disclosure to doctors and other participants of the plaintiff’s in vitro fertiliza |
tion did not render that information public). |
229. See Lior Jacob Strahilevitz, “A Social Networks Theory of Privacy,” 72 |
U niversity o f Chicago Law Review 919, 974 (2005). |
230. Quoted in Norbert Elias, The C ivilizing Process 112 (1994). |
231. DeMay v. Roberts, 9 N.W. 146, 148-49 (Mich. 1881). |
232. Nat’l Archives & Records Admin, v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 171, 168 (2004) |
(quoting 5 U.S.C. §552(b) (7) (C) (2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted). |
Courts have also allowed tort suits based on the dissemination of autopsy photos. |
See Reid v. Pierce County, 961 P.2d 333, 339-42 (Wash. 1998) (en banc) (holding |
that relatives of deceased persons maintained a cause of action for invasion of pri |
vacy when coroner’s office employees disseminated autopsy photos). |
233. Earnhardt v. Volusia County Office of the Medical Examiner, No. 2001- |
30373-CICI, at 7 (7th Judicial Circuit, July 9, 2001). |
234. Judgement of June 16, 1858, Trib. Pr. Inst, de la Seine, 1858 D.P. Ill 62 |
(Fr.) (1’affaire Rachel), quoted in Hauch, “Protecting Private Facts in France,” |
1233. |
235. See, e.g., Anita L. Allen, “Lying to Protect Privacy,” 44 Villanova Law Re |
view 161, 177 (1999) (“Sex is an area in which we encounter our desires, prejudices |
and shame, and cloak these emotions in privacy”). |
236. See Elias, C ivilizing Process, 114 (“The social reference of shame and em |
barrassment recedes more and more from consciousness. Precisely because the social |
command not to show oneself exposed or performing natural functions now oper |
ates with regard to everyone[,]... it seems to the adult a command of his own |
inner self”). |
237. Martha C. Nussbaum, H iding from H um anity: Disgust, Sham e, and the Law |
115-16(2004). |
238. See William Ian Miller, The A natom y o f D isgust Y ll (1997) (“The civi |
lizing process, according to [Norbert] Elias, means the expansion of the private |
sphere at the expense of the public. The new norms demand private spaces in |
which one prepares, grooms, and does the things that would disgust others if |
they were to be witnessed”); Carl D. Schneider, Sham e, Exposure, and Privacy 49 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.