wildercb/PrivacyTextBooks1.2 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 118
NOTES & QUESTIONS
1.
Involuntary Public Figures. After losing his privacy suit against the
New Yorker, Sidis sued it for libel for the false information in the story.
Among his charges, he claimed that a reader of the article would think
that he was a reprehensible character, disloyal to his country, a
loathsome and filthy person in personal habits, suffered a mental
breakdown, and was a fool, who lived in misery and poverty. The New
Yorker settled this case out of court for a small amount of money, which
Wallace estimates in her biography of Sidis at between $500 and $600.
Sidis suffered from high blood pressure, and, approximately three
months after receiving the settlement from the New Yorker, on July 17,
1944, he died from a cerebral hemorrhage and pneumonia. He was 46
years old and had $652.81 in his bank account.
The life of William Sidis illustrates a man profoundly disturbed by
being thrust by his parents into the limelight as a child and by the
media hounding him. He tried to spend his adult life fleeing from being
the focus of any public attention. If he had been an involuntary public
figure in the past, should this affect whether he should be able to retreat
from the public eye in the future? Does it matter that he became a
public figure as a child, that is, that he did not voluntarily choose this
status as an adult?
The Sidis case suggests the principle that once one is a public figure,
one is always a public figure. Can people who were once famous ever
retreat into obscurity?
2.
Who Was J.L. Manley? What Did He Try to Convey in His Article?
The Sidis article was written by a “J.L. Manley.” In a biography of
James Thurber, the famous American humorist, Burton Bernstein
reveals that Thurber used Jared L. Manley as a pseudonym.4 Under this
signature, Thurber wrote 24 profiles of onetime celebrities, including
the Sidis piece. All pieces were based on the research of other reporters
at the New Yorker, including the unnamed reporter who actually
interviewed Sidis.
In Thurber’s own account of his time at the New Yorker, he faulted
the Sidis court on one matter: “[N]owhere was there any indication of
what I thought had stood out all through my story, implicit though it
was — my feeling that the piece would help to curb the great American
thrusting of talented children into the glare of fame or notoriety, a
procedure in so many cases disastrous to the later career and happiness
of the exploited youngsters.”5
3.
J.D. Salinger’s Letters. In 1998, Joyce Maynard wrote an
autobiography, At Home in the World, that describes her romance with
J.D. Salinger in the 1970s. J.D. Salinger, an acclaimed author who
wrote The Catcher in the Rye, had long ago completely retreated from
public life and adopted a highly secluded existence in New Hampshire.
In 1999, Maynard auctioned the letters J.D. Salinger wrote to her. She
received $156,500 for the letters from the auction at Sotheby’s. CNN
reported at that time, “California philanthropist Peter Norton, who
bought the letters, said he plans to return them to Salinger.” Should
Salinger have a right to privacy in the disclosure of the letters?
Copyright law does create a copyright interest in unpublished letters —
which prevents not only the publication of the entire contents of the
letters, but a paraphrase of the letters that is too close to the actual text
of the letters. See Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir.
1987). Should privacy law provide Salinger with the right to sue over
the writing of Maynard’s book?
4.
Girls Gone Wild. A company markets videotapes of young college
women at spring break or Mardi Gras flashing and undressing. The
women, often intoxicated, reveal their nudity in public and give their
permission to use the video footage on the company’s videotapes,
which are called “Girls Gone Wild.” Later on, when sober, some of the
women regret their decision to be in the video. Have they waived all
privacy rights to their nude images on the video if they sign a consent
form? Or should they be entitled to have some time to reconsider?
Should they not be able to sign away these rights even when sober?
Others have sued claiming that they were just filmed in public without
signing a consent form. Do they have a valid privacy claim even when
they exposed themselves in public?
5.
Privacy Inalienability. Do we care whether or not Sidis knew he was
talking to a reporter as opposed to a new neighbor? Can we assume that
anyone who talks to a reporter has abandoned a privacy interest in the
information that she shares with the journalist? More broadly, to what
extent should privacy interests be tradable, waiveable, or otherwise
alienable?6
6.
Googleization. The Internet makes the preservation and dissemination
of information much easier. Information about a person can be easily
discovered by “Googling” them. Google will pull up dozens,
sometimes hundreds of thousands, of information fragments about a
person. It is becoming increasingly difficult for people to hide their
personal information, which once would fade into obscurity but is now
preserved forever on the Internet. Youthful indiscretions become
permanent baggage. Consider the plight of one Michael, who was
briefly imprisoned as a minor. The information comes up on a Google
search, and Michael finds that it is inhibiting his ability to date, since
many of the women he dates inquire about his time in prison. They
have obviously Googled him:
“When you meet someone,” Michael says, “you don’t say, ‘I had an affair one time,’ or ‘I
was arrested for DUI once,’ or ‘I cheated on my taxes in 1984.’ ”... [W]hat Michael finds
most disturbing are the sudden silences. “Instead of thinking, ‘Was I curt last week?’ or
‘Did I insult this political party or that belief?’ I have to think about what happened when
I was 17.”7
Is Sidis’s claim to privacy quaint by today’s standards? How do we
protect privacy in a post-Google world?
7.
The Star Wars Kid and the Numa Numa Dance. An overweight,

NOTES & QUESTIONS

1.

Involuntary Public Figures. After losing his privacy suit against the

New Yorker, Sidis sued it for libel for the false information in the story.

Among his charges, he claimed that a reader of the article would think

that he was a reprehensible character, disloyal to his country, a

loathsome and filthy person in personal habits, suffered a mental

breakdown, and was a fool, who lived in misery and poverty. The New

Yorker settled this case out of court for a small amount of money, which

Wallace estimates in her biography of Sidis at between $500 and $600.

Sidis suffered from high blood pressure, and, approximately three

months after receiving the settlement from the New Yorker, on July 17,

1944, he died from a cerebral hemorrhage and pneumonia. He was 46

years old and had $652.81 in his bank account.

The life of William Sidis illustrates a man profoundly disturbed by

being thrust by his parents into the limelight as a child and by the

media hounding him. He tried to spend his adult life fleeing from being

the focus of any public attention. If he had been an involuntary public

figure in the past, should this affect whether he should be able to retreat

from the public eye in the future? Does it matter that he became a

public figure as a child, that is, that he did not voluntarily choose this

status as an adult?

The Sidis case suggests the principle that once one is a public figure,

one is always a public figure. Can people who were once famous ever

retreat into obscurity?

2.

Who Was J.L. Manley? What Did He Try to Convey in His Article?

The Sidis article was written by a “J.L. Manley.” In a biography of

James Thurber, the famous American humorist, Burton Bernstein

reveals that Thurber used Jared L. Manley as a pseudonym.4 Under this

signature, Thurber wrote 24 profiles of onetime celebrities, including

the Sidis piece. All pieces were based on the research of other reporters

at the New Yorker, including the unnamed reporter who actually

interviewed Sidis.

In Thurber’s own account of his time at the New Yorker, he faulted

the Sidis court on one matter: “[N]owhere was there any indication of

what I thought had stood out all through my story, implicit though it

was — my feeling that the piece would help to curb the great American

thrusting of talented children into the glare of fame or notoriety, a

procedure in so many cases disastrous to the later career and happiness

of the exploited youngsters.”5

3.

J.D. Salinger’s Letters. In 1998, Joyce Maynard wrote an

autobiography, At Home in the World, that describes her romance with

J.D. Salinger in the 1970s. J.D. Salinger, an acclaimed author who

wrote The Catcher in the Rye, had long ago completely retreated from

public life and adopted a highly secluded existence in New Hampshire.

In 1999, Maynard auctioned the letters J.D. Salinger wrote to her. She

received $156,500 for the letters from the auction at Sotheby’s. CNN

reported at that time, “California philanthropist Peter Norton, who

bought the letters, said he plans to return them to Salinger.” Should

Salinger have a right to privacy in the disclosure of the letters?

Copyright law does create a copyright interest in unpublished letters —

which prevents not only the publication of the entire contents of the

letters, but a paraphrase of the letters that is too close to the actual text

of the letters. See Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir.

1987). Should privacy law provide Salinger with the right to sue over

the writing of Maynard’s book?

4.

Girls Gone Wild. A company markets videotapes of young college

women at spring break or Mardi Gras flashing and undressing. The

women, often intoxicated, reveal their nudity in public and give their

permission to use the video footage on the company’s videotapes,

which are called “Girls Gone Wild.” Later on, when sober, some of the

women regret their decision to be in the video. Have they waived all

privacy rights to their nude images on the video if they sign a consent

form? Or should they be entitled to have some time to reconsider?

Should they not be able to sign away these rights even when sober?

Others have sued claiming that they were just filmed in public without

signing a consent form. Do they have a valid privacy claim even when

they exposed themselves in public?

5.

Privacy Inalienability. Do we care whether or not Sidis knew he was

talking to a reporter as opposed to a new neighbor? Can we assume that

anyone who talks to a reporter has abandoned a privacy interest in the

information that she shares with the journalist? More broadly, to what

extent should privacy interests be tradable, waiveable, or otherwise

alienable?6

6.

Googleization. The Internet makes the preservation and dissemination

of information much easier. Information about a person can be easily

discovered by “Googling” them. Google will pull up dozens,

sometimes hundreds of thousands, of information fragments about a

person. It is becoming increasingly difficult for people to hide their

personal information, which once would fade into obscurity but is now

preserved forever on the Internet. Youthful indiscretions become

permanent baggage. Consider the plight of one Michael, who was

briefly imprisoned as a minor. The information comes up on a Google

search, and Michael finds that it is inhibiting his ability to date, since

many of the women he dates inquire about his time in prison. They

have obviously Googled him:

“When you meet someone,” Michael says, “you don’t say, ‘I had an affair one time,’ or ‘I

was arrested for DUI once,’ or ‘I cheated on my taxes in 1984.’ ”... [W]hat Michael finds

most disturbing are the sudden silences. “Instead of thinking, ‘Was I curt last week?’ or

‘Did I insult this political party or that belief?’ I have to think about what happened when

I was 17.”7

Is Sidis’s claim to privacy quaint by today’s standards? How do we

protect privacy in a post-Google world?

7.

The Star Wars Kid and the Numa Numa Dance. An overweight,