Too early for a RequiemWarren and Brandeis were right about Privacy vs Free Speech.docx

Too early for a RequiemWarren and Brandeis were right about Privacy vs Free Speech.docx

《Too early for a RequiemWarren and Brandeis were right about Privacy vs Free Speech.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Too early for a RequiemWarren and Brandeis were right about Privacy vs Free Speech.docx（18页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

TooearlyforaRequiemWarrenandBrandeiswererightaboutPrivacyvsFreeSpeech

TooearlyforaRequiem:

WarrenandBrandeiswererightaboutPrivacyvs.FreeSpeech

RuthGavisonSouthCaliforniaLawReview

"OnehundredyearsagoWarrenandBrandeispublishedtheirclassicarticle,whichadvocatedthatthecommonlawcouldandshouldgrantaremedyforviolationsofprivacy.1Theyidentifiedtwoparadigmatictypesofinvasionsofprivacy:

Theexposureoftheprivaciesoflifethroughthethenswiftlygrowingmassmedia,andtheuseofindividuals'namesandpicturesinpromotionalactivities."

I.Introduction

II.TheWarrenandBrandeisAnalysis

III.TheImpactoftheWarrenandBrandeisAnalysis

IV.TowardsaBetterAnalysisofthePrivacyandFreeSpeechConflict

A.LosingSightoftheImportanceofPrivacy

B.InapplicabilityofSomeGeneralFreeSpeechConcerns

C.First-andSecond-OrderArguments

D.MoralityandLegality

E.TheBenefitsoftheWarrenandBrandeisAnalysis

V.Epilogue

I.Introduction

OnehundredyearsagoWarrenandBrandeispublishedtheirclassicarticle,whichadvocatedthatthecommonlawcouldandshouldgrantaremedyforviolationsofprivacy.1Theyidentifiedtwoparadigmatictypesofinvasionsofprivacy:

Theexposureoftheprivaciesoflifethroughthethenswiftlygrowingmassmedia,andtheuseofindividuals'namesandpicturesinpromotionalactivities.

Thearticleisfrequentlydescribedintwopartlyinconsistentways.Ontheonehand,thearticleissupposedtobethemostinfluentiallawreviewarticleeverwritten,anessaythatsingle-handedlycreatedatortandanawarenessoftheneedforlegalremediesforinvasionsofprivacy.Itisaclassic,apearlofcommon-lawreasoning,andproofoftheabilityofthelawtomeetnewandchallengingconceptionsofvalue.Ontheotherhand,especiallysincethedevelopmentoftheconstitutionalaspectsofspeechtortlaw,manyquestionthevalidityandthedesirabilityofthetort,particularlywhenitclashesdirectlywiththefreedomtopublish.Inthelastdecadedoubtshaveledsomestatecourtstoexplicitlyrejectanyrightofindividualstoobtainalegalremedyforpublicationoftrueprivatefactsaboutthemagainsttheirwill.TheSupremeCourthasdecidedfoursuchprivacycases,denyingaremedyinallofthem.CommentatorshavesuggestedthatthelawinfacthasnotrespondedfavorablytoWarrenandBrandeis'sparticularconcerns—theprotectionofsomeareasoflifeandactivityfromtruthfuldepictionandpublication—andthatthisisacorrectresponse.Onecommentatordeclaredthatitwastimeforarequiem.2Naturally,thethreetrends,statecourtrejectionofthetort,SupremeCourtdenialofaremedy,andacademiccriticism,reinforceeachother.

IshallarguethatWarrenandBrandeis'sanalysisofprivacyanditsconflictwithfreespeechisstillmorevalid,clear,andadequatethanmanyofthedecisionsandliteraturethathavecomeinitswake.Thearticlehasstoodthetestoftimebetterthanmanyothercontributionstothequestionofprivacyanditslegalprotection.Furthermore,Ishallarguethatthestrengthoftheiranalysisisontwolevels.First,theirrecommendationforthepropersolutiontotheconflictbetweenprivacyandfreespeechiswiserandmoresensitivetothevaluesofindividualsandsocietiesthanthealmostabsolutepriorityofspeechadvocatedbymanycourtsandscholars.Moreover,theirsolutionisstilltheoneadvocatedbymanyscholarswhosecommitmenttofreespeechcannotbedoubted.Second,theyreachedthesebetterconclusionsbecausetheirapproachtotheconflictwasclearerandsounderthanotherapproaches.

InPartII,IshallsketchWarrenandBrandeis'sanalysis.InPartIII,Ishalldescribethewaysinwhichthecurrentlawofprivacyreflectseitheracceptanceofordeparturefromtheiranalysis.ThisdescriptionwillprovidethebackgroundformycriticalPartIV.IshallsuggestageneralapproachinPartIVtotheprivacyandfreespeechconflictthatisdifferentandsounderthantheoneadoptedbymanycourtsandcommentators.IalsowillshowhowWarrenandBrandeiswereclosertothisapproachthanmanyofthedecisionsandmuchoftheliteraturethatreflectthepresentstateofthelaw.WarrenandBrandeis'sanalysisstillprovidesuswithagoodstartingpointforthisimportantdiscussionbecauseonehundredyearslatertheiranalysisisaliveandwell.ByrearguingwithWarrenandBrandeiswithintheirframework,wemightbeledtomodifysomeoftheiremphases,butmanymoremightagreethattheyhadthebetterargumentthantheircritics.

II.TheWarrenandBrandeisAnalysis

TheWarrenandBrandeisarticleisanadvocate'sbriefforajudge-madetortofinvasionofprivacy.Asinmanysuchbriefs,itidentifieswhentheadvocatesexpecttomeetresistanceandwhattheymayseeasevidentandunproblematic.Thearticlefocusesontheresistanceandtreatsthelattersummarilyandsketchily.

WarrenandBrandeisobviouslytooksomeofthepremisesessentialtotheirargumenttobeself-evident:

thatpressbehaviorandnewtechnologiesofacquisitionanddisseminationofinformationpresentanewthreattoprivacy,thatprivacyisveryimportanttothelivesofindividualsandtothewell-beingofsociety,thatinvasionsofprivacycouldoccasionallycauseharmandinjuryasgreatasthosecausedbyphysicalorfinancialloss,thatinsomecasesinvasionsofprivacybypublicationservenolegitimatepublicinterest,andthatthelawshouldbeenlistedtodeterthiskindofbehaviorinthesamewaythatitisusedtopreventothertypesofharms.

Manycommentatorsmayfindthesepremisesquestionable.Forsomethemagnitudeortheseriousnessofthelossofprivacyisnotsufficientlyestablished.Othersbelievethatalegitimatepublicinterestalwaysexistsinwhatispublished.Athirdgroupdoubtswhetherthelawshouldlimitpublicationoftrueinformationaboutindividuals.Ifthepremisesaretrue,however,theycreateaplausibleskeletonofanargumentformakinginvasionsofprivacy,includingunjustifiedinvasionsofprivacybypublication,actionableingeneral.

Unfortunately,WarrenandBrandeisdidnotprovideuswithanelaboratedefenseofthesepremises.Ratherthanargueforthem,theymerelystatedthem.Theyassumedthattheiraudienceagreedwiththesepremisesanddirectedtheirrhetoricaleffortelsewhere.Theydevotedmorethantwo-thirdsofthearticletotheargumentsthatabasiccommon-lawprincipleisthattheindividualshouldhave"fullprotectioninpersonandinproperty,"3thattheharmstoindividualsgeneratedbythreatstoprivacyareinconsistentwiththis"fullprotection,"andthatalegalremedyforinvasionsofprivacy,althoughsuperficiallysimilartoprotectionofreputation,isinfacttheprinciplealreadyrecognizedinthelawconcerningtherightofpeopletopreventpublicationinothercontexts.WarrenandBrandeissimplyarguedtoextendtherightintoamoregeneralrighttoaninviolatepersonality.

ThispartoftheargumentwasrequiredmainlybecauseWarrenandBrandeisaddressedtheirpleatothecourts.Theythereforehadtoshowabasisinexistingcommon-lawprinciplesthatwouldpermit,andmaybeevenrequire,judicialdevelopmentofthelawtoprotectprivacy.4Toassesstheirargumenttoday,however,itismoreimportanttofocusbothonwhattheysaidtoshowthatthelawshouldprotectprivacyandonthewayinwhichtheyapproachedtheconflictbetweenprivacyandfreespeech.BecauseWarrenandBrandeisconcentratedtheirenergiesonadifferentpurpose,theirargumentsonthesesubjectswererathersketchy.Whattheysaid,however,createstheskeletonofaplausibleargumentthatcanandshouldbefilledin.

IconfessthatsomeofmyadmirationforthepiecerestsontheintuitionsthatIsharewiththem.LikeWarrenandBrandeis,Ifindtheirpremisesself-evidentandcompelling.Unlikethem,Ihavehadthebenefitofexposuretomanyotherswhodonotsharetheseintuitions.Iwasledtoacceptthatitisnotenoughtostatethepremises.Onemustelaborateonandargueforthesepremisesinsomedetail.Inthelastanalysis,however,muchstilldependsonintuition,andWarrenandBrandeis'sskeletonofanargumentissimple,elegant,andvalid.IdoubtthatmanywillseriouslyquestionWarrenandBrandeis'spremisethatchangingtechnologiesanddevelopinghumanenterprisescreatenewthreatstoprivacy.Massmediaisamongthosehumanenterprisesthatthreatenprivacy.5Muchmorecontroversialistheirpremiseconcerningtheharmfulnessofviolationsofprivacy.SomeofthecriticismisdirectedatWarrenandBrandeis'sclaimthatinvasionsofprivacywereprimarilymotivatedbygossipmongering.8Idonotsharetheviewthatjournalismismotivatedprimarilybyadesiretodisseminategossip,northatthedisseminationoforthereadingofgossipisnecessarilyundesirable.However,Idowanttodefendadifferent,muchweakerpremise,whichisallWarrenandBrandeisneededandwhichisofcrucialimportance:

Someinvasionsofprivacybyunwantedpublicityoftruthfulinformationmaybeharmfultobothindividualsandsociety.Iwillexplaintheimportanceofthisinsightbelow.AtthisstageIshallstressonlythatWarrenandBrandeisthemselvesdistinguishedtwotypesofharmthatmaybeinvolvedincirculatinggossip.Thefirstwastheemotionalharmtotheindividualswhoaredeniedthebenefitsofanecessaryretreatfromtheworldandofprivacyandsolitude.Theseindividualssuffer"mentalpainanddistressfargreaterthancouldbeinflictedbymerebodilyinjury."7Thesecondwastheharmtothesocialclimate.Insensitivitytoprivacy"bothbelittlesandperverts"theaspirationsofmananddistortsprop