5.
Are truth and lack of malice adequate defenses for invading someone's privacy,
according to Warren and Brandeis? What is their reasoning? Do you
agree with their position? Why or why not
Warren and Brandeis said “The truth of the matter published does not
afford a defence. Obviously this branch of the law should have no concern with
the truth or falsehood of the matters published.” They state that slander and
defamation of character should in fact be protected. That the way it should be
protected is to respect someone’s privacy and not make any matters public
without the consent of the subject. That it is an invasion of privacy
regardless of if it is true or false. That it doesn’t matter if in fact that
there is truth or a wrong account of someone’s private life, it should not be
made public for any reason. The branch of law that covers these privacy issues
should consider the truth or falsehood of the data as irrelevant and protect
the individual regardless. I agree with this position. It doesn’t matter if you
are spreading false rumors or uncovering truths about an individual or a group,
it should be considered an invasion of privacy, and could also be considered
slander if it meets the criteria defined in our laws. I do however make a
concession in the event of a crime being unveiled. In that situation the source
should have to be public and face the individual and defend his claims in a
court of law. If in fact that individual made a false claim of a crime being committed
he or she should be held liable in a court of law.
In regards to privacy Warren and Brandeis state “The absence of
"malice" in the publisher does not afford a defense. Personal
ill-will is not an ingredient of the offence, any more than in an ordinary case
of trespass to person or to property. Such malice is never necessary to be
shown in an action for libel or slander at common law, except in rebuttal of
some defense, e.g., that the occasion rendered the communication privileged, or,
under the statutes in this State and elsewhere, that the statement complained
of was true.” They argue that the invasion of privacy is an invasion of privacy
regardless of intent. There should be protection against such acts in a
complete and equal manner. That if it wasn’t considered an offense it would
damage the integrity of the entire legal system in regards to all kinds of
statutory violations, It is a wrong committed no matter what was intended and
should be dealt with in a manner befitting the severity of the offense. I
partially agree with their statement. I am going to generalize but it is
germane to this topic. If someone commits a crime by accident and it causes
damages or harm to anyone else financially, physically, mentally etc. they should
have to answer for their actions. However I personally believe there is a big
difference between someone making a mistake and a person who intentionally
causes harm. My argument is both parties should definitely be accountable for
their actions, but if it can be proven to intentional that party should have a
harsher penalty then the person who it was an honest mistake. Other factors
withstanding such as reputation or record of individuals involved, witnesses
etc. But I digress some as the answer to the question is it intentions are in
fact not a defense to justify the action. They can be taken into consideration
in special circumstances but they don’t make it right or acceptable.
Different day different font.
Here is my amended copy of this
assignment. I will go into further
detail on the why. The reason why the information being either true or false is
not a defense in regards to sharing ti against the owner’s permission. Why is
that wrong? It is wrong because it is a
violation of someone’s right to privacy. It does not matter if it is true or
false, it only matters that you should not try and steal or disseminate that
information in any capacity. A person has a right to privacy and has a right
against slander. They have a right to keep their information private. The
reason is they have ownership of that information and they are the only ones
who can choose how it is used if at all. If it is stored privately, and someone
accesses it against the owner’s permission that is wrong. It is a violation of
that person’s property and is unlawful. It is wrong because it is unlawful but
it is also unlawful because it is wrong. We should all be protected against
that happening as it can seriously affect our life in a negative manner. That
is why it is not a defense and shouldn’t be done at all.
Lack of malice is also not a
defense. As we discussed last week in class it is extremely hard to determine someone’s
intent. If they say their intent is good or it was an accident they have put
themselves in a position to violate the owner’s privacy and should not be able
to use whoops as a defense. We are protected against having our privacy
violated regardless of the reasoning behind it. Intent if determined can weigh
in on consequences but it is no way a justification of this action. Why? Because unfortunately we live in a world
where people lie and the honor system is only observed by fools. We live in a
world where if an action is committed and it is wrong either morally or
especially legally the individual who committed it has to answer for it.
Cheers
PZB
PZB, I think you're developing the ideas here in a more sophisticated way than you did in the first version--good work! You're asserting that disseminating information without permission is wrong because it's a violation of the right to privacy. I can see how it would violate a right to privacy. But why does a right to privacy exist? What defends the idea that there is such a thing? What sort of right is it? Where does it come from? You also mention the idea that we should be protected from violations of privacy because "it can seriously affect our life in a negative manner." Are all actions that could adversely affect one another's lives morally unacceptable? Why or why not?
ReplyDelete