What do you think?
Rate this book
The Right to Privacy
"The Right to Privacy" from Samuel D. Warren. Samuel D. Warren, a Boston attorney (1852-1910).
- GenresNonfictionLaw
38 pages, Paperback
Published May 9, 2015
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 10, 2023
A must-read!!
August 16, 2017
I read this due to the damore firing at google, to gain a greater understanding of our right to privacy. Much is made of the first amendment and the right to freedom of speech, but little is made to our right to privacy. A majority, when internally polled at google disagreed with what damore had to say, and the company made a decision to fire him on the grounds that that speech did not agree with their own, as a company. When I look back at my own life, it was the right to be let alone not the right to say as I please, which I cherished the most. What Brandeis talks about here is just why this right, which we take for granted, is important. Speech is seen as our person because it takes action, we think that the way we are and what distinguishes us has to do with what we say. Speech is on a part of our personality. When we take in the cumulative traits which make up our personality, it is our inaction on most things which most define us. It is in my view that the right to one's own personality has more to do with what we don't say than what we do.
Inaction takes many forms. It can be in not saying something, when the ability to have an opinion existed, but it also exists in other areas outside speech. It has been tied to a woman's right to abortion and to not be illegally strip searched, two things which we take for granted today but did not always exist. It also has to do with how groups or companies decide to represent themselves publicly. It takes many different forms and I would butcher them all if I tried. Brandeis does a much better job talking about them here.
Many people see the liberalizing of the court as starting with the civil rights movement, namely of women's suffrage and expansion of rights for other minority groups, which pushed the court to act more when in years prior it did not. It would seem to be that texts like this were the real catalyst. The fourth amendment does not really ensure the right to privacy, this right we take for granted is not really bestowed upon us by the constitution. It was the actions of judges and lawyers interpreting the constitution in the way that they have, where the language of the document is just not there, that got us this right. That's why I love the judicial branch. The one branch which would seem least democratic, seems to most act in the interest of the individual.
You can make the point that Damore was an inquisitive mind. Expressing a need to explore the workplace in a new way. A conservative activist among progressives. I don't accept the premise to his argument, but it is a viewpoint, a viewpoint that is protected speech. It was not explicitly harmful but it was ill informed. Whatever the case of his speech may be, Google has no obligation to have that activism be a part of their company. They have the right to be left alone, to decide that his views, even if they are sincere, to not be represented as a part of their company. A majority of employees polled internally did not like his speech, they clearly acted in a way as to acknowledge the concerns of a majority of their employees. That's a reasonable concern and I think it should be respected.
"After the decisions denying the distinction attempted to be made between those literary productions which it was intended to publish and those which it was not, all considerations of the amount of labor involved, the degree of deliberation, the value of the product, and the intention of publishing must be abandoned, and no basis is discerned upon which the right to restrain publication and reproduction of such so-called literary and artistic works can be rested, except the right to privacy, as a part of the more general right to the immunity of the person, — the right to one's personality." ~ Louis Brandeis
“The most important political office is that of private citizen.” ~ Louis Brandeis
Inaction takes many forms. It can be in not saying something, when the ability to have an opinion existed, but it also exists in other areas outside speech. It has been tied to a woman's right to abortion and to not be illegally strip searched, two things which we take for granted today but did not always exist. It also has to do with how groups or companies decide to represent themselves publicly. It takes many different forms and I would butcher them all if I tried. Brandeis does a much better job talking about them here.
Many people see the liberalizing of the court as starting with the civil rights movement, namely of women's suffrage and expansion of rights for other minority groups, which pushed the court to act more when in years prior it did not. It would seem to be that texts like this were the real catalyst. The fourth amendment does not really ensure the right to privacy, this right we take for granted is not really bestowed upon us by the constitution. It was the actions of judges and lawyers interpreting the constitution in the way that they have, where the language of the document is just not there, that got us this right. That's why I love the judicial branch. The one branch which would seem least democratic, seems to most act in the interest of the individual.
You can make the point that Damore was an inquisitive mind. Expressing a need to explore the workplace in a new way. A conservative activist among progressives. I don't accept the premise to his argument, but it is a viewpoint, a viewpoint that is protected speech. It was not explicitly harmful but it was ill informed. Whatever the case of his speech may be, Google has no obligation to have that activism be a part of their company. They have the right to be left alone, to decide that his views, even if they are sincere, to not be represented as a part of their company. A majority of employees polled internally did not like his speech, they clearly acted in a way as to acknowledge the concerns of a majority of their employees. That's a reasonable concern and I think it should be respected.
"After the decisions denying the distinction attempted to be made between those literary productions which it was intended to publish and those which it was not, all considerations of the amount of labor involved, the degree of deliberation, the value of the product, and the intention of publishing must be abandoned, and no basis is discerned upon which the right to restrain publication and reproduction of such so-called literary and artistic works can be rested, except the right to privacy, as a part of the more general right to the immunity of the person, — the right to one's personality." ~ Louis Brandeis
“The most important political office is that of private citizen.” ~ Louis Brandeis
December 4, 2023
Increíble que un abogado tarambana y trepa diese pie a este texto intachable en su abstracto jurídico y sustanciación de corpus legal por aquello de venirle los paparazzi a tirarle fotos mientras se jalaba un culo en una boda de alta alcurnia.
Lo de "Indeed, it is difficult to conceive on what theory of the law the casual recipient of a letter, who proceeds to publish it, is guilty of a breach of contract, express or implied, or of any breach of trust, in the ordinary acceptation of that term" es clave para todos aquellos que enviamos fotopollas y vemos cómo se nos aliena de toda dignidad cuando estas son publicadas por sus destinatarias tengamos algún tipo de herramienta legal de defensa en los tribunales.
Lo de "Indeed, it is difficult to conceive on what theory of the law the casual recipient of a letter, who proceeds to publish it, is guilty of a breach of contract, express or implied, or of any breach of trust, in the ordinary acceptation of that term" es clave para todos aquellos que enviamos fotopollas y vemos cómo se nos aliena de toda dignidad cuando estas son publicadas por sus destinatarias tengamos algún tipo de herramienta legal de defensa en los tribunales.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews