Abstract
This chapter argues that there is a close relationship between freedom of speech and privacy. Private spaces offer a protected domain in which individuals can test and experiment with ideas between intimates. The perception of being observed or surveilled acts as a limitation on free expression. The chapter also considers one widely discussed tension between free speech and privacy—the exposure of details about the private life of public figures. The chapter concludes that where these tensions exist, keyhole solutions that target behaviour that occurs in the act of violating privacy is likely to be superior to solutions that limit free expression.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See for instance Edward Lee, “The Right to be Forgotten v. Free Speech,” I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 12, no. 1 (2015), 85–111; Michael Douglas, “Questioning the Right to Be Forgotten,” Alternative Law Journal 40, no. 2 (2015), 109–12; Robert G. Larson III, “Forgetting the First Amendment: How Obscurity-Based Privacy and a Right to Be Forgotten Are Incompatible with Free Speech,” Communication Law and Policy 18, no. 1 (2013), 91–120.
- 2.
Alan Travis and Charles Arthur, “EU Court Backs ‘Right to Be Forgotten’: Google Must Amend Results on Request,” The Guardian, 13 May 2013.
- 3.
Chris Berg, In Defence of Freedom of Speech: From Ancient Greece to Andrew Bolt, Monographs on Western Civilisation (Melbourne and Subiaco, WA: Institute of Public Affairs and Mannkal Economic Education Foundation, 2012).
- 4.
John Locke, “Liberty of the Press,” in Locke: Political Essays, edited by Mark Goldie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
- 5.
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1982).
- 6.
John Barrell, The Spirit of Despotism: Invasions of Privacy in the 1790s (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), chap. 2.
- 7.
Jürgen Habermas, Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1989), 36.
- 8.
Richard Sennett, The Fall of Public Man (London: Penguin Books, 2002), 81.
- 9.
Barrell, 87.
- 10.
Ibid., 84.
- 11.
Ibid., 91–92.
- 12.
Gregory L. White and Philip G. Zimbardo, “The Chilling Effects of Surveillance: Deindividuation and Reactance,” in ONR Technical Report (Office of Naval Research, 1975).
- 13.
Ibid., 22.
- 14.
PEN American Center, “Chilling Effects: Nsa Surveillance Drives U.S. Writers to Self-Censor,” (PEN American Center, 2013).
- 15.
Stephen Cobb, “New Harris Poll Shows Nsa Revelations Impact Online Shopping, Banking, and More,” WeLiveSecurity, 2 April 2014.
- 16.
Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Eff Files 22 Firsthand Accounts of How Nsa Surveillance Chilled the Right to Association,” News Release, 7 November, 2013, https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-files-22-firsthand-accounts-how-nsa-surveillance-chilled-right-association.
- 17.
Neil Richards, Intellectual Privacy: Rethinking Civil Liberties in the Digital Age (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 5.
- 18.
Chris Berg, “An Institutional Theory of Free Speech,” SSRN (2017).
- 19.
Richards, 103.
- 20.
Ibid., 108.
- 21.
C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).
- 22.
Louis B. Schwartz, “On Current Proposals to Legalize Wire Tapping,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 103 (1954), 162.
- 23.
Harry T. Reis and Phillip Shaver, “Intimacy as an Interpersonal Process,” in Handbook of Personal Relationships, ed. Steve Duck (John Wiley & Sons, 1988), 376.
- 24.
On privacy as intimacy, see Robert S. Gerstein, “Intimacy and Privacy,” Ethics 89, no. 1 (1978); Tom Gerety, “Redefining Privacy,” Harvard Civil Rights—Civil Liberties Law Review 12, no. 2 (1977).
- 25.
Julia H. Fawcett, Spectacular Disappearances: Celebrity and Privacy, 1696–1801 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016), 3.
- 26.
Ibid.
- 27.
Adrian Bingham, Family Newspapers? Sex, Private Life & the British Popular Press 1918–1978 (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 230.
- 28.
Leveson Inquiry, “Report into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press,” (London: Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport and Leveson Inquiry, 2012), 593.
- 29.
Ray Finkelstein and Matthew Ricketson, “Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation,” (Australian Government, 2012), 118.
- 30.
Fawcett.
- 31.
Daren Briscoe, “The Giving Back Awards: 15 People Who Make America Great,” Newsweek, 2 July 2006.
- 32.
Judith Jarvis Thomson , “The Right to Privacy,” Philosophy & Public Affairs (1975).
- 33.
Leveson Inquiry, 813.
- 34.
Matthew Lee, “Strict Liability and the Anti-Paparazzi Act: The Best Solution to Protect Children of Celebrities,” Hastings LJ Online 66 (2015).
- 35.
Irene L Kim, “Defending Freedom of Speech: The Unconstitutionality of Anti-Paparazzi Legislation,” South Dakota Law Review 44 (1999); Christina M. Locke, “Does Anti-Paparazzi Mean Anti-Press: First Amendment Implications of Privacy Legislation for the Newsroom,” Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law 20 (2010); Lee; Christina M. Locke and Kara Carnley Murrhee, “Is Driving with the Intent to Gather News a Crime-the Chilling Effects of California’s Anti-Paparazzi Legislation,” Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 31 (2010).
- 36.
Joshua Azriel, “Unconstitutional First Amendment Restrictions against Press and Paparazzi in California: An Analysis of How Sections 1708.8 and 1708.7 of the California Civil Code Infringe on Press Freedoms,” Communications Lawyer 32, no. 2 (2016).
Bibliography
Azriel, Joshua. “Unconstitutional First Amendment Restrictions against Press and Paparazzi in California: An Analysis of How Sections 1708.8 and 1708.7 of the California Civil Code Infringe on Press Freedoms.” Communications Lawyer 32, no. 2 (2016): 5–11.
Baker, C Edwin. Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Barrell, John. The Spirit of Despotism: Invasions of Privacy in the 1790s. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Berg, Chris. In Defence of Freedom of Speech: From Ancient Greece to Andrew Bolt. Monographs on Western Civilisation. Melbourne and Subiaco, WA: Institute of Public Affairs and Mannkal Economic Education Foundation, 2012.
———. “An Institutional Theory of Free Speech.” SSRN, 2017.
Bingham, Adrian. Family Newspapers? Sex, Private Life & the British Popular Press 1918–1978. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Briscoe, Daren. “The Giving Back Awards: 15 People Who Make America Great.” Newsweek, 2 July 2006.
Cobb, Stephen. “New Harris Poll Shows Nsa Revelations Impact Online Shopping, Banking, and More.” WeLiveSecurity, 2 April 2014.
Douglas, Michael, “Questioning the Right to be Forgotten.” Alternative Law Journal 40, no. 2 (2015): 109–12.
Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Eff Files 22 Firsthand Accounts of How Nsa Surveillance Chilled the Right to Association.” News Release, 7 November 2013. https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-files-22-firsthand-accounts-how-nsa-surveillance-chilled-right-association.
Fawcett, Julia H. Spectacular Disappearances: Celebrity and Privacy, 1696–1801. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016.
Finkelstein, Ray, and Matthew Ricketson. “Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation.” Australian Government, 2012.
Gerety, Tom. “Redefining Privacy.” Harvard Civil Rights—Civil Liberties Law Review 12, no. 2 (1977): 233–96.
Gerstein, Robert S. “Intimacy and Privacy.” Ethics, 89, no. 1 (1978): 76–81.
Habermas, Jürgen. Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1989.
Kim, Irene L. “Defending Freedom of Speech: The Unconstitutionality of Anti-Paparazzi Legislation.” South Dakota Law Review 44 (1999): 275–318.
Larson III, Robert G. “Forgetting the First Amendment: How Obscurity-Based Privacy and a Right to Be Forgotten Are Incompatible with Free Speech.” Communication Law and Policy 18, no. 1 (2013): 91–120.
Lee, Edward. “The Right to be Forgotten v. Free Speech.” I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 12, no. 1 (2015a): 85–111.
Lee, Matthew. “Strict Liability and the Anti-Paparazzi Act: The Best Solution to Protect Children of Celebrities.” Hastings LJ Online 66 (2015b): 1.
Leveson Inquiry. “Report into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press.” London: Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport and Leveson Inquiry, 2012.
Locke, Christina M. “Does Anti-Paparazzi Mean Anti-Press: First Amendment Implications of Privacy Legislation for the Newsroom.” Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law 20 (2010): 227.
Locke, Christina M., and Kara Carnley Murrhee. “Is Driving with the Intent to Gather News a Crime-the Chilling Effects of California’s Anti-Paparazzi Legislation.” Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 31 (2010): 83.
Locke, John. “Liberty of the Press.” In Locke: Political Essays, edited by Mark Goldie, 329–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1982. 1859.
PEN American Center. “Chilling Effects: Nsa Surveillance Drives U.S. Writers to Self-Censor.” PEN American Center, 2013.
Reis, Harry T., and Phillip Shaver. “Intimacy as an Interpersonal Process.” In Handbook of Personal Relationships, edited by Steve Duck, 367–89. John Wiley & Sons, 1988.
Richards, Neil. Intellectual Privacy: Rethinking Civil Liberties in the Digital Age. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Schwartz, Louis B. “On Current Proposals to Legalize Wire Tapping.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 103 (1954): 157–67.
Sennett, Richard. The Fall of Public Man. London: Penguin Books, 2002.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “The Right to Privacy.” Philosophy & Public Affairs (1975): 295–314.
Travis, Alan, and Charles Arthur, “EU Court Backs ‘Right to Be Forgotten’: Google Must Amend Results on Request.” The Guardian, 13 May 2013.
White, Gregory L., and Philip G. Zimbardo. “The Chilling Effects of Surveillance: Deindividuation and Reactance.” In ONR Technical Report, Office of Naval Research, 1975.
Wilcox, Zooko. “Zcash’s Zooko Wilcox on Why He Believes Privacy Coins Will Be Used More for Good Than Bad.” By Laura Shin. Unchained, 27 March 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Berg, C. (2018). Privacy and Speech. In: The Classical Liberal Case for Privacy in a World of Surveillance and Technological Change. Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96583-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96583-3_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96582-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96583-3
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)