wildercb/PrivacyTextBooks1.2 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 118
63. B. Moore, Privacy, 256.
64. Mumford, City in History, 286.
65. Laura Gowing, Domestic Dangers: Women, Words, and Sex in Early Modem
London 70 (1996); Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in
the Late Modem Age 163 (1991).
66. Richard F. Hixson, Privacy in a Public Society: Human Rights in Conflict 11
(1987); Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 79. “The small size of colonial
dwellings allowed children quite early in their lives to hear and see sexual activity
among adults. Although curtains might isolate the parental bed, all family mem
bers commonly slept in the same room, especially during winters, where a single
fireplace provided the heat.” John D’Emilio & Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Mat
ters: A History of Sexuality in America 17 (2d ed. 1997).
67. Richard Godbeer, Sexual Revolution in Early America 93 (2002)..
68. Thomas Nagel, Concealment and Exposure and Other Essays 16 (2002).
69. B. Moore, Privacy, 66.
70. Gowing, Domestic Dangers, 70-74, 192; Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex,
and Marriage in England, 1500-1800, 324 (Penguin Books ed. 1990).
71. D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate Matters, 17; Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial
New England, 92.
Notes to Pages 55-58
213
72. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 93-94; Godbeer, Sexual Revolu
tion, 867-88; D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate Matters, 11 (“In Puritan theology,
the entire community had responsibility for upholding morality”).
73. Godbeer, Sexual Revolution, 100. “In New England, public confession and
repentance both restored the individual to the congregation and at the same time
confirmed the propriety of sexual rules.” D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate M at
ters, 27.
74. Godbeer, Sexual Revolution, 100.
75. Id. at 236, 300, 301.
76. “Sexual access to other persons is subject to some limitations in every
known human society. There may possibly be a desire, which cannot always be
gratified, to keep the human body inviolate, to prohibit or prevent intrusion in
times of weakness or great emotional excitement, such as excretion or sexual inter
course.” B. Moore, Privacy, 13.
77. Lawrence M. Friedman, Crime and Punishment in American History 34
(1993); D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate Matters, 11.
78. Godbeer, Sexual Revolution, 102.
79. D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate Matters, 49-50; Godbeer, Sexual Revolu
tion, 228.
80. D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate Matters, 83.
81. Id. at 138.
82. Id. at 138, 160, 133-35,213.
83. Lawrence M. Friedman, “Name Robbers: Privacy, Blackmail, and Assorted
Matters in Legal History,” 30 Hofitra Law Review 1093, 1100 (2002).
84. D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate Matters, 160.
85. Rochelle Gurstein, The Repeal o f Reticence 91-145, 99 (1996).
86. Angus McLaren, Sexual Blackmail: A Modern History 274 (2002) (“At the be
ginning of the twentieth century the knowledge that a woman had had an abortion
or an out-of-wedlock child or that a man was a homosexual or had had an adul
terous affair could have disastrous consequences. By the 1990s a distinct shift had
obviously occurred. The majority of the population had come to accept the notion
that adults’ private, consensual sexual acts should be left alone”).
87. D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate Matters, 242-43.
88. 381 U.S. 479,485-86 (1965).
89. Lawrence M. Friedman, Private Lives: Family, Individuals, and the Law 173
(2004).
90. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003).
91. Friedman, Private Lives, 94-95.
92. Goldhill, Love, Sex, and Tragedy, 99.
93. Argentine Constitution art. 18-19 (1994); Constitution of Finland §10;
Constitution of Greece art. 9 (1975); Constitution of the Republic of Korea art. 16;
quoted in Electronic Privacy Information Center & Privacy International, Privacy
and Human Rights 212,449, 507, 917-18 (2005).
94. Hixson, Privacy in a Public Society, 13. In the eighteenth century, William
Blackstone declared that the law has “so particular and tender a regard to the im
munity of a man’s house that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be vio
lated with impunity.” 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
223 (1769).
214
Notes to Pages 58-60
95. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 85.
96. B. Moore, Privacy, 115-16.
97. Semayne’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 195 (K.B. 1604). For more on the ori
gins of the maxim, see Note, “The Right to Privacy in Nineteenth Century
America,” 94 Harvard Law Review 1892, 1894 n.18 (1981). The note, although
anonymous, was written by legal historian David J. Seipp.
98. Quoted in Charles J. Sykes, The End of Privacy 83 (1999).
99. 116 U.S. 616, 630(1886).
100. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589 (1980).
101. U.S. Const, amends. Ill and IV.
102. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961).
103. Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 253 (1964) (Douglas, J., concurring).
104. Michelle Adams, “Knowing Your Place: Theorizing Sexual Harassment at
Home,” 40 Arizona Law Review 17, 23-24 (1998).
105. Hareven, “Home and the Family,” 254-256.
106. William H. Gass, “Making Ourselves Comfortable,” New York Times, Aug.
3, 1986, §7, at 1.
107. Rybczynski, Home, 25.
108. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 45. In eighteenth-century New
England, for example, families were twice as large on average as they are today,
and a significant number of homes housed more than one family. See id. at 47.
109. Arlette Farge, “Community, State, and Family: Trajectories and Tensions:
The Honor and Secrecy of Families,” in A History of Private Life, vol. 3, SI 5-16.
110. See Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 43-44, 91.
111. See, e.g., Rybczynski, Home, 28.
112. Mumford, City in Histoiy, 286.
113. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 76. Beds were crowded because of
the scarcity of beds and the need for warmth. See id. at 78. At inns, strangers some
times shared the same bed. See Gottlieb, Family in the Western World, 41.

63. B. Moore, Privacy, 256.

64. Mumford, City in History, 286.

65. Laura Gowing, Domestic Dangers: Women, Words, and Sex in Early Modem

London 70 (1996); Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in

the Late Modem Age 163 (1991).

66. Richard F. Hixson, Privacy in a Public Society: Human Rights in Conflict 11

(1987); Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 79. “The small size of colonial

dwellings allowed children quite early in their lives to hear and see sexual activity

among adults. Although curtains might isolate the parental bed, all family mem

bers commonly slept in the same room, especially during winters, where a single

fireplace provided the heat.” John D’Emilio & Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Mat

ters: A History of Sexuality in America 17 (2d ed. 1997).

67. Richard Godbeer, Sexual Revolution in Early America 93 (2002)..

68. Thomas Nagel, Concealment and Exposure and Other Essays 16 (2002).

69. B. Moore, Privacy, 66.

70. Gowing, Domestic Dangers, 70-74, 192; Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex,

and Marriage in England, 1500-1800, 324 (Penguin Books ed. 1990).

71. D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate Matters, 17; Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial

New England, 92.

Notes to Pages 55-58

213

72. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 93-94; Godbeer, Sexual Revolu

tion, 867-88; D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate Matters, 11 (“In Puritan theology,

the entire community had responsibility for upholding morality”).

73. Godbeer, Sexual Revolution, 100. “In New England, public confession and

repentance both restored the individual to the congregation and at the same time

confirmed the propriety of sexual rules.” D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate M at

ters, 27.

74. Godbeer, Sexual Revolution, 100.

75. Id. at 236, 300, 301.

76. “Sexual access to other persons is subject to some limitations in every

known human society. There may possibly be a desire, which cannot always be

gratified, to keep the human body inviolate, to prohibit or prevent intrusion in

times of weakness or great emotional excitement, such as excretion or sexual inter

course.” B. Moore, Privacy, 13.

77. Lawrence M. Friedman, Crime and Punishment in American History 34

(1993); D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate Matters, 11.

78. Godbeer, Sexual Revolution, 102.

79. D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate Matters, 49-50; Godbeer, Sexual Revolu

tion, 228.

80. D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate Matters, 83.

81. Id. at 138.

82. Id. at 138, 160, 133-35,213.

83. Lawrence M. Friedman, “Name Robbers: Privacy, Blackmail, and Assorted

Matters in Legal History,” 30 Hofitra Law Review 1093, 1100 (2002).

84. D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate Matters, 160.

85. Rochelle Gurstein, The Repeal o f Reticence 91-145, 99 (1996).

86. Angus McLaren, Sexual Blackmail: A Modern History 274 (2002) (“At the be

ginning of the twentieth century the knowledge that a woman had had an abortion

or an out-of-wedlock child or that a man was a homosexual or had had an adul

terous affair could have disastrous consequences. By the 1990s a distinct shift had

obviously occurred. The majority of the population had come to accept the notion

that adults’ private, consensual sexual acts should be left alone”).

87. D’Emilio & Freedman, Intimate Matters, 242-43.

88. 381 U.S. 479,485-86 (1965).

89. Lawrence M. Friedman, Private Lives: Family, Individuals, and the Law 173

(2004).

90. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003).

91. Friedman, Private Lives, 94-95.

92. Goldhill, Love, Sex, and Tragedy, 99.

93. Argentine Constitution art. 18-19 (1994); Constitution of Finland §10;

Constitution of Greece art. 9 (1975); Constitution of the Republic of Korea art. 16;

quoted in Electronic Privacy Information Center & Privacy International, Privacy

and Human Rights 212,449, 507, 917-18 (2005).

94. Hixson, Privacy in a Public Society, 13. In the eighteenth century, William

Blackstone declared that the law has “so particular and tender a regard to the im

munity of a man’s house that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be vio

lated with impunity.” 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

223 (1769).

214

Notes to Pages 58-60

95. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 85.

96. B. Moore, Privacy, 115-16.

97. Semayne’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 195 (K.B. 1604). For more on the ori

gins of the maxim, see Note, “The Right to Privacy in Nineteenth Century

America,” 94 Harvard Law Review 1892, 1894 n.18 (1981). The note, although

anonymous, was written by legal historian David J. Seipp.

98. Quoted in Charles J. Sykes, The End of Privacy 83 (1999).

99. 116 U.S. 616, 630(1886).

100. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589 (1980).

101. U.S. Const, amends. Ill and IV.

102. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961).

103. Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 253 (1964) (Douglas, J., concurring).

104. Michelle Adams, “Knowing Your Place: Theorizing Sexual Harassment at

Home,” 40 Arizona Law Review 17, 23-24 (1998).

105. Hareven, “Home and the Family,” 254-256.

106. William H. Gass, “Making Ourselves Comfortable,” New York Times, Aug.

3, 1986, §7, at 1.

107. Rybczynski, Home, 25.

108. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 45. In eighteenth-century New

England, for example, families were twice as large on average as they are today,

and a significant number of homes housed more than one family. See id. at 47.

109. Arlette Farge, “Community, State, and Family: Trajectories and Tensions:

The Honor and Secrecy of Families,” in A History of Private Life, vol. 3, SI 5-16.

110. See Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 43-44, 91.

111. See, e.g., Rybczynski, Home, 28.

112. Mumford, City in Histoiy, 286.

113. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 76. Beds were crowded because of

the scarcity of beds and the need for warmth. See id. at 78. At inns, strangers some

times shared the same bed. See Gottlieb, Family in the Western World, 41.