Warren And Brandeis: An Individual's Right To Privacy

Improved Essays
Arguing against Warren and Brandeis, the extent of law does not protect an individual’s right if the individual itself is aware of their actions, and the information they publicize online or the way they speak in a social setting. This is an important difference to recognize when reviewing an individual’s right to privacy, I believe Warren and Brandeis should have expanded on this, since it is in the interest of an individual to control their own information and actions they portray online and in the public. In the Harvard review, the authours leave out that individuals have their own freedom of self-control, actions and information they expose in public. According to Warren and Brandeis, there is a difference if one acts irrationally in public …show more content…
In my critical opinion, their objective was to try and concern how a social right (the right to privacy) can be as crucial as legal right (such as the right to property). Although, their main focus was to explain a better way of understanding an individual’s right to their privacy, the better way of implementing this law is to relate it to “the right to be let alone” which they have addressed in their article (205). Warren and Brandeis’ theory and concept of an individual’s right to be left alone is more severe, since it essentially has to do with the individual’s fundamental right to be able to live life freely. The “right to be let alone” is part of the American legal act. However, this still does not relate to an individual’s right to privacy under the law, this has to do with one’s right to liberty. The theory of right to liberty has to do with one’s ability to act the way they want to in a society as long as it does not infringe on other’s freedom of right. The right to privacy has the ability to give the right of individuals to act freely and to express themselves in a matter that is compliant. Again, Warren and Brandeis state that if one does not act appropriately in society, it is the legal right for them to be left alone. On the contrary, if someone is acting out in society, it is their own freedom to act the way they wish, it is out of their own risk to act in such way where there may be consequence. What Warren and Brandeis need to realize is: privacy concerns two parties, the individual and society. The interest of privacy is for individual, but, in a public setting the two parties are involved. The invasion of privacy is different for example, when one looks through the window of an individual’s home and takes a picture. This is an invasion and one does not

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    In “Towards a Theory of Privacy in the information Age,” James H. Moor explains greased information, the foundation and nature of privacy, and the adjustment of policies to ensure privacy under certain situations before proposing a control/restricted access theory of privacy. Moor argues that one of the problems of privacy is that once information is exposed, others can have access to it and use it, sometimes without consent. He then claims that privacy is not a core value, or an essential value shared by all cultures, but that privacy is indeed essential in what he calls our system of values. Overall, Moor argues that it is important for us to think of privacy as a control/restricted access account because it encourages informed consent and…

    • 1065 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    His standpoint is that the government should not interfere with people’s lives unless it is to prevent harm to another person. He sees this as the only time the government can legitimately interfere with an individual’s liberty. Mill believes people should have the freedom to do whatever actions they wish to themselves when he states “His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” (Mill, 13). Mill does not view something as extreme as an individual harming themselves as grounds for the government to restrict a person’s liberty. This argument from Mill is conflictive with present day society with many laws in place to protect individuals from harming themselves.…

    • 1816 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Freedom Of Free Speech

    • 1355 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Freedom of speech is thought to be essential in a democratic society. The right to freedom of speech does not extend to free speech when political issues are not…

    • 1355 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Harm is an action that is “injurious or set[s] back important interest[s] of particular people, interests in which they have rights,” whereas a mere offence is something that Mill’s does not see as a defence under the harm principle (Brink 2007, ch.3.6, para. 2). The second concept beneath the harm principle is that this principle is imposed to prevent someone from trying to cause harm in a certain way. It can become difficult trying to guard individuals from harm, therefore, allowing for citizens to self-govern themselves so they can determine what is safe and harmful. From what we can understand, the harm principle regulates a relationship between individuals and the government, however Mill’s wants this theory to dig deeper and apply its foundation within the family (Brink 2007, ch.3.6).…

    • 1465 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Paradox Of Freedom

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Paradox of freedom Freedom is the power or right that enables someone to act, speak or think according to personal interest without hindrance or experiencing resistance. In connection to the freedom, it requires to be controlled whereby having freedom does not automatically prove one if free. Freedom is also associated and connected to some level of fundamental obligations. It requires one to use freedom wisely as it comes with responsibilities. The paradox of freedom is the essence of obligations that comes with freedom whereby involved person has to ensure they are maintained.…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If we, as a society agree in punishment for breaking laws, then we, as a society must believe in free will. Humans must have free will or we are punishing people for actions for which they had no control. There cannot be moral responsibility if everything is determined, as the responsibility would not fall on the human, but rather the force that made the predetermination. Philosopher John Locke discusses this in his book An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. He states that the ability to suspend the fulfillment of one’s desires shows that we are have free will.…

    • 2102 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The Miller test uses community standards which imposes view of the majority onto views of the minority. This violates the spirit of a liberal reading of the First Amendment because it restricts content and therefore speech. Speech and individual liberty should be protected. Content should not be prohibited, especially when it is based on community standards because they are “unsupported by reasoning of any intelligible kind” and do not rise to the “dignity of moral reasoning that justifies the deprivation of liberty.” Richards also argues that pornography should not be prohibited because it has some redeeming values such as creating ideas that individuals may like, providing a release for individuals who may not have access to sexual partners, and it can also reduce the incidence of certain…

    • 798 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This idea becomes clearer in Stanley Benn’s essay, “Privacy, Freedom, and Respect for Persons,” where he considers the value of privacy. Like Immanuel Kant, Benn develops a non-consequentialist argument: it is not the consequence of our actions, but rather the goodness of the act in itself that is significant. Benn looks at this in the context of privacy, attempting to show that “some minimal right to immunity from observation and reporting is required by certain basic features of our conception of a person” (Benn 224). Benn believes that invasions of privacy are inherently bad, because of their disrespect for personhood. He thus argues that everyone is entitled to a certain degree of consideration for the fact that they are rational, autonomous agents; we must recognize others as having “a kind of enterprise” like our own (229).…

    • 1343 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill focuses on the concept of a clear distinction between when the authority of society can limit individuality and when there can be “sovereignty of the individual over himself”; however, he also argues the point that control should be given whenever society and the individual have an interest in a particular part of human life (82). Mill rejects the notion of a social contract, which Locke argues for, but due to the protections provided by society, the citizens owe a return for these benefits. He defines the harm principle by each individual having the right to act however they please, as long as it does not affect the person undertaking the action. Society cannot intervene, even if the act the person is committing causes harm to them. Each…

    • 1426 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This would make the legislature unconstitutional and the legislature could be modified or scrapped entirely to fit within the framework of the US Constitution. States cannot enact a statute that violates or infringes upon the first amendment rights of an entity; the entities in this case being GMI and HDTV. In this case the free speech being violated is these companies right to commercial speech which is protected under the first amendment. However, limits can be placed upon commercial free speech, but in this case the limit restricts commercial free speech too heavily and the purpose is unsupported for protecting…

    • 972 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays