Anthony Lewis writes in “Freedom For the Thought That We Hate-A Biography of the First Amendment”, that we live in “an age of exposure” and discusses the “crushing of privacy in the name of [free speech]”. Lewis suggests that the balance between privacy and freedom has tipped too far toward freedom. I however, disagree.
In all matters of free speech that are being debated: the issue of privacy being invaded due to free speech, hate speech being protected by the first amendment, etc., it is important to look at how alternative rulings on the matter would affect the interpretation of the First Amendment. If the laws were changed it would be very difficult to set the criteria for matters such as privacy and hate speech. The definition of hate speech could be stretched to include any negative comments on our government, taking us back to colonial era struggles. Stricter privacy laws would greatly affect our news and how much the public is informed of. While yes, I don’t think photographers need to be sneaking around in the bushes of celebrities to publish embarrassing photos of them, I consider the flip side to be much worse. Imagine that due to privacy laws the names of sex offenders in your area could not be released for the general public to know. It would be difficult to define what could and could not be kept private.
In 2002 Lord Chief Justice Woolf set aside an injunction obtained by a football player to keep a tabloid from publishing details of his affairs with two women. Woolf later expressed the importance of judges not censoring information merely because it offends them. Commenting on his verdict Woolf said, “a man who indulges in multiple affairs cannot complain if one of the women kisses and tells.” This particular case reminds me that in many cases in which people are suing for publication of intimate or embarrassing facts, those facts are usually considered so due to a flaw in their moral character or an error in their judgment. Of course this is not the case in all privacy issues, such as the case of William Sidis or The Hill family, but when the matter is the fault of the plaintiff I feel no remorse in its publication.
Additionally the notion of privacy is an odd one in our society today. It takes me about ten seconds to log onto Facebook and find out what town a person is from, what schools they have been to, where they have worked, their family members’ names, where they vacation, etc. My Twitter feed is constantly updating me on where people are, what they are doing, and what they think. These social media channels aren’t only providing me with this information about my friends and peers, but also about people I may have only exchanged one conversation with, perhaps not even that. With our wired in society it is hard to believe that any matter could be kept private for long.
I can clearly see Lewis’s point about us living in an age of exposure, and cases similar to those of William Sidis or of the Hill family do still make me question how privacy cases are decided. However, considering the alternative stances that could be taken, the nature of many privacy cases today, and the copious amounts of personal information that our society chooses to share with the world, I cannot say I think that the balance has been tipped too far.
