wildercb/PrivacyTextBooks1.2 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 118
23. John Dewey, “In Reply to Some Criticisms” (1930), in 5 The Later Works of
John Dewey 210, 216 (Jo Ann Boydston ed., 1984).
24. James, Pragmatism, 33.
25. See Dewey, Logic, 16.
26. See John Dewey, “What Pragmatism Means by Practical” (1908), in 4 The
Middle Works of John Dewey 98, 100 (Jo Ann Boydston ed., 1977).
27. John Dewey, “The Quest for Certainty” (1929) in 4 The Later Works of John
Dewey 16, 21 (Jo Ann Boydston ed., 1988).
28. Georges Duby, “Foreword” to A History of Private Life, vol. 1, From Pagan
Rome to Byzantium viii (Paul Veyne ed. & Arthur Goldhammer trans., 1987).
29. United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res
217A(III), UN Doc A/Res/810 (1948) (“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary in
terference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon
his honor and reputation”).
30. Jurgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere 47-48
(1991).
31. Georges Duby, “Private Power, Public Power,” in A History of Private Life,
vol. 2, Revelations of the Medieval World 7 (Georges Duby ed. & Arthur Gold-
hammer trans., 1988).
Notes to Pages 51-53
211
32. David H. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England 56 (1972).
33. Michelle Perrot, “The Family Triumphant,” in A History o f Private Life, vol.
4, From the Fires ofRrcolution to the Great War 121, 123 (Michelle Perrot ed. &
Arthur Goldhammer trans., 1990).
34. Tamara K. Hareven, “The Home and the Family in Historical Perspec
tive,” 58 Social Research 253, 257 (1991).
35. Roger Chartier, “Community, State, and Family: Trajectories and Ten
sions: Introduction,” in A History o f Private Life, vol. 3 Passions o f the Renaissance 400
(Roger Chartier ed. & Arthur Goldhammer trans., 1989); Beatrice Gottlieb, The
Family in the Western World from the Black Death to the Industrial Age 52—53 (1993);
Catherine Hall, “The Sweet Delights of Home,” in A History o f Private Life, vol. 4,
50; Michelle Perrot, “Roles and Characters,” in A History o f Private Life, vol. 4,
181-86.
36. Lawrence Stone, “The Public and the Private in Stately Homes of England,
1500-1990,” 58 Social Research 221, 233 (1991); Perrot, “Roles and Characters,”
181.
37. Hareven, “Home and the Family,” 257.
38. Anita L. Allen, Uneasy Access: Privacy for Women in a Free Society 69 (1988);
see generally Henrik Hartog, Man and Wife in America: A History (2000).
39. Reva B. Siegel, “‘The Rule of Love’: Wife Beating as Prerogative and Pri
vacy,” 105 Yale Law Journal 2117, 2122, 2118,2152 (1996).
40. State v. Hussey, 44 N.C. 123, 126-27 (1852).
41. Siegel, “Rule of Love,” 2158.
42. See, e.g., Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State 191
(1989). For an overview of the feminist critique of privacy, see Patricia Boling, Pri
vacy and the Politics o f Intimate Life (1996); Judith Wagner DeCew, In Pursuit of Pri
vacy: Law, Ethics, and the Rise of Technology 81-94 (1997). For a critique of Mac
Kinnon, see Allen, Uneasy Access; Ruth Gavison, “Feminism and the Public/Private
Distinction,” 45 Stanford Law Review 21 (1992).
43. Tom Gerety claims that any concept of privacy “must take the body as its
first and most basic reference for control over personal identity.” Tom Gerety,
“Redefining Privacy,” 12 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 233, 266
& n.119 (1977).
44. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891).
45. Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Minn. 1998).
46. Radhika Rao, “Property, Privacy, and the Human Body,” 80 Boston Univer
sity Law Review 359 (2000). Rao critiques the tendency to reduce one’s control
over one’s body to a simple property right. “[PJrivacy theory entitled the body to
protection as the physical embodiment of a person, the subject of a privacy in
terest, whereas property theory reduces the body to a mere object of ownership.”
Id. at 445.
47. Peter Brown, “Late Antiquity,” in A History o f Private Life, vol. 1, 245—46.
48. Richard Sennett, Flesh and Stone: The Body and the City in Western Civilization
33 (1994). “Athenian democracy placed great emphasis on its citizens exposing
their thoughts to others, just as men exposed their bodies. These mutual acts of
disclosure were meant to draw the knot between citizens ever tighter.” Id. Public
nudity was limited to men. Women did not display their naked bodies in public.
See id. at 34.
212
Notes to Pages 53-55
49. Simon Goldhill, Love, Sex, and Tragedy: Hera the Ancient World Shapes Our
Lives 15, 19 (2004).
50. Witold Rybczynski, Home: A Short History of an Idea 28, 30 (1986). Of
course, practices in these matters differed due to the influence of the customs of
each specific society, as well as religious beliefs and the social status of individuals.
51. Goldhill, Lave, Sex, and Tragedy, 112, 113; see also Peter Brown, The Body
and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity 438 (1988)
(“No longer were the body’s taut musculature and its refined poise, signs of the
athlete and the potential warrior, put on display, as marks of upper-class status”).
52. Stone, “Public and the Private,” 229 (1991).
53. Philippe Aries, “Introduction” to A History of Private Life, vol. 3, 4; Roger
Chartier, “Forms of Privatization: Introduction,” in A History of Private Life, vol. 3,
163-64.
54. See Aries, “Introduction,” 5.
55. Sennett, Flesh and Stone, 343.
56. Stone, “Public and the Private,” 228.
57. Id. at 244.
58. Barrington Moore, Jr., Privacy: Studies in Social and Cultural History 146
(1984). Historian Lewis Mumford observes, “In the castles of the thirteenth cen
tury, one notes the existence of a private bedroom for the noble owners; and one
also finds, not far from it, perched over the moat, a private toilet: the first hint of
the nineteenth-century luxury of a private toilet for every family.” Lewis Mum-
ford, The City in History 285 (1961).
59. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty 11 (David Spitz ed., 1975) (“Over himself, over
his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”).
60. Jacques Gelis, “Forms of Privatization: The Child: From Anonymity to In
dividuality,” in A History o f Private Life, vol. 3, 310, 316.
61. Restatement (Second) of Torts §652D cmt. b.
62. Peck v. United Kingdom, [2003] ECHR 44 (2003), at *057.

23. John Dewey, “In Reply to Some Criticisms” (1930), in 5 The Later Works of

John Dewey 210, 216 (Jo Ann Boydston ed., 1984).

24. James, Pragmatism, 33.

25. See Dewey, Logic, 16.

26. See John Dewey, “What Pragmatism Means by Practical” (1908), in 4 The

Middle Works of John Dewey 98, 100 (Jo Ann Boydston ed., 1977).

27. John Dewey, “The Quest for Certainty” (1929) in 4 The Later Works of John

Dewey 16, 21 (Jo Ann Boydston ed., 1988).

28. Georges Duby, “Foreword” to A History of Private Life, vol. 1, From Pagan

Rome to Byzantium viii (Paul Veyne ed. & Arthur Goldhammer trans., 1987).

29. United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res

217A(III), UN Doc A/Res/810 (1948) (“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary in

terference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon

his honor and reputation”).

30. Jurgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere 47-48

(1991).

31. Georges Duby, “Private Power, Public Power,” in A History of Private Life,

vol. 2, Revelations of the Medieval World 7 (Georges Duby ed. & Arthur Gold-

hammer trans., 1988).

Notes to Pages 51-53

211

32. David H. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England 56 (1972).

33. Michelle Perrot, “The Family Triumphant,” in A History o f Private Life, vol.

4, From the Fires ofRrcolution to the Great War 121, 123 (Michelle Perrot ed. &

Arthur Goldhammer trans., 1990).

34. Tamara K. Hareven, “The Home and the Family in Historical Perspec

tive,” 58 Social Research 253, 257 (1991).

35. Roger Chartier, “Community, State, and Family: Trajectories and Ten

sions: Introduction,” in A History o f Private Life, vol. 3 Passions o f the Renaissance 400

(Roger Chartier ed. & Arthur Goldhammer trans., 1989); Beatrice Gottlieb, The

Family in the Western World from the Black Death to the Industrial Age 52—53 (1993);

Catherine Hall, “The Sweet Delights of Home,” in A History o f Private Life, vol. 4,

50; Michelle Perrot, “Roles and Characters,” in A History o f Private Life, vol. 4,

181-86.

36. Lawrence Stone, “The Public and the Private in Stately Homes of England,

1500-1990,” 58 Social Research 221, 233 (1991); Perrot, “Roles and Characters,”

181.

37. Hareven, “Home and the Family,” 257.

38. Anita L. Allen, Uneasy Access: Privacy for Women in a Free Society 69 (1988);

see generally Henrik Hartog, Man and Wife in America: A History (2000).

39. Reva B. Siegel, “‘The Rule of Love’: Wife Beating as Prerogative and Pri

vacy,” 105 Yale Law Journal 2117, 2122, 2118,2152 (1996).

40. State v. Hussey, 44 N.C. 123, 126-27 (1852).

41. Siegel, “Rule of Love,” 2158.

42. See, e.g., Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State 191

(1989). For an overview of the feminist critique of privacy, see Patricia Boling, Pri

vacy and the Politics o f Intimate Life (1996); Judith Wagner DeCew, In Pursuit of Pri

vacy: Law, Ethics, and the Rise of Technology 81-94 (1997). For a critique of Mac

Kinnon, see Allen, Uneasy Access; Ruth Gavison, “Feminism and the Public/Private

Distinction,” 45 Stanford Law Review 21 (1992).

43. Tom Gerety claims that any concept of privacy “must take the body as its

first and most basic reference for control over personal identity.” Tom Gerety,

“Redefining Privacy,” 12 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 233, 266

& n.119 (1977).

44. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891).

45. Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Minn. 1998).

46. Radhika Rao, “Property, Privacy, and the Human Body,” 80 Boston Univer

sity Law Review 359 (2000). Rao critiques the tendency to reduce one’s control

over one’s body to a simple property right. “[PJrivacy theory entitled the body to

protection as the physical embodiment of a person, the subject of a privacy in

terest, whereas property theory reduces the body to a mere object of ownership.”

Id. at 445.

47. Peter Brown, “Late Antiquity,” in A History o f Private Life, vol. 1, 245—46.

48. Richard Sennett, Flesh and Stone: The Body and the City in Western Civilization

33 (1994). “Athenian democracy placed great emphasis on its citizens exposing

their thoughts to others, just as men exposed their bodies. These mutual acts of

disclosure were meant to draw the knot between citizens ever tighter.” Id. Public

nudity was limited to men. Women did not display their naked bodies in public.

See id. at 34.

212

Notes to Pages 53-55

49. Simon Goldhill, Love, Sex, and Tragedy: Hera the Ancient World Shapes Our

Lives 15, 19 (2004).

50. Witold Rybczynski, Home: A Short History of an Idea 28, 30 (1986). Of

course, practices in these matters differed due to the influence of the customs of

each specific society, as well as religious beliefs and the social status of individuals.

51. Goldhill, Lave, Sex, and Tragedy, 112, 113; see also Peter Brown, The Body

and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity 438 (1988)

(“No longer were the body’s taut musculature and its refined poise, signs of the

athlete and the potential warrior, put on display, as marks of upper-class status”).

52. Stone, “Public and the Private,” 229 (1991).

53. Philippe Aries, “Introduction” to A History of Private Life, vol. 3, 4; Roger

Chartier, “Forms of Privatization: Introduction,” in A History of Private Life, vol. 3,

163-64.

54. See Aries, “Introduction,” 5.

55. Sennett, Flesh and Stone, 343.

56. Stone, “Public and the Private,” 228.

57. Id. at 244.

58. Barrington Moore, Jr., Privacy: Studies in Social and Cultural History 146

(1984). Historian Lewis Mumford observes, “In the castles of the thirteenth cen

tury, one notes the existence of a private bedroom for the noble owners; and one

also finds, not far from it, perched over the moat, a private toilet: the first hint of

the nineteenth-century luxury of a private toilet for every family.” Lewis Mum-

ford, The City in History 285 (1961).

59. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty 11 (David Spitz ed., 1975) (“Over himself, over

his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”).

60. Jacques Gelis, “Forms of Privatization: The Child: From Anonymity to In

dividuality,” in A History o f Private Life, vol. 3, 310, 316.

61. Restatement (Second) of Torts §652D cmt. b.

62. Peck v. United Kingdom, [2003] ECHR 44 (2003), at *057.