The puzzle of brandeis, privacy, and speech

Vanderbilt Law Review

Volumn 63, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1295-1352

  Richards, Neil M ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952841865     PISSN: 00422533     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (429)

1. Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HARV. L. Rev. 193 (1890).
2. 277 U.S. 438, 471 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
3. See, e.g., Harry Kalven, Jr., Privacy in Tort Law-Were Warren & Brandeis Wrong?, 31 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 326, 327 (1966) (arguing further that The Right to Privacy is "the most influential law review article of all," in any field).
4. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361-62 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring).
5. 381 U.S. 479, 486-87 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring).
6. 410 U.S. 113, 152(1973).
7. For examples of scholarship addressing this conflict, see generally THOMAS I. EMERSON, The System of Freedom of Expression 556 (1970)
8. Daniel J. Solove, The Future of REPUTATION (2008) [hereinafter SOLOVE, FUTURE OF REPUTATION)
9. Edward J. Bloustein, Privacy, Tort Law, and the Constitution: Is Warren and Brandeis's Tort Petty and Unconstitutional as Well?, 46 TEX. L. Rev. 611 (1968)
10. Julie E. Cohen, Examined Lives: Informational Privacy and the Subject as Object, 52 STAN. L. Rev. 1373 (2000)
11. Peter B. Edelman, Free Press v. Privacy: Haunted by the Ghost of Justice Black, 68 TEX. L. Rev. 1195 (1990)
12. Marc. A. Franklin, A Constitutional Problem in Privacy Protection: Legal Inhibitions on Reporting of Fact, 16 STAN. L. REV. 107 (1963)
13. Amy Gajda, Judging Journalism: The Turn Toward Privacy and Judicial Regulation of the Press, 97 CAL. L. REV. 1039 (2009)
14. Ruth Gavison, Too Early for a Requiem: Warren and Brandeis Were Right on Privacy vs. Free Speech, 43 S.C. L. REV. 437 (1992)
15. Paul Gewirtz, Privacy and Speech, 2001 SUP. CT. REV. 139 (2001)
16. Robert C. Post, The Social Foundations of Privacy: Community and Self in the Common Law Tort, 77 CAL. L. REV. 957 (1989)
17. Roscoe Pound, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Right of Privacy, 13 W. RES. L. REV. 34 (1961)
18. William Prosser, Privacy, 48 CAL. L. REV. 383 (1960)
19. Neil M. Richards, Reconciling Data Privacy and the First Amendment, 52 UCLA L. REV. 1149 (2005)
20. Frederick Schauer, Free Speech and the Social Construction of Privacy, 68 SOC. RES. 221 (2001)
21. Daniel J. Solove, The Virtues of Knowing Less: Justifying Privacy Protections Against Disclosure, 53 DUKE L.J. 967 (2003) [hereinafter Solove, Virtues)
22. Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech and Information Privacy: The Troubling Implications of a Right to Stop People from Speaking About You, 52 STAN. L. Rev. 1049 (2000).
23. See infra note 284 and accompanying text (discussing case law).
24. Richards, supra note 7, at 1154.
25. See Harry Kalven, Jr., a Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America 156-66 (1988) (discussing the influence of Brandeis's opinions)
26. DAVID M. RABBAN, Free SPEECH IN Its Forgotten Years 369 (1997) (same)
27. G. Edward White, The Constitution and the New Deal 143 (2000) (same)
28. Robert M. Cover, The Left, the Right, and the First Amendment: 1918-1928, 40 MD. L. REV. 349, 374 (1981) (same).
29. 274 U.S. 357, 372-80 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
30. Vincent Blasi, The First Amendment and the Ideal of Civic Courage: The Brandeis Opinion in Whitney v. California, 29 Wm. & MARY L. REV. 653, 668 (1988). Numerous other scholars have made similar claims.
31. See, e.g., Ashutosh A. Bhagwhat, The Story of Whitney v. California.- The Power of Ideas, in CONSTITUTIONAL Law STORIES 407-08 (Michael Dorf ed., 2004)
32. KALVEN, supra note 10, at 156-66
33. RABBAN, supra note 10, at 369; WHITE, supra note 10, at 143.
34. For the principal books on Brandeis's life and thought
35. see generally ALLON GAL, Brandeis of Boston (1980)
36. Alpheus Thomas Mason, Brandeis: A Free Man's Life (1946)
37. Edward A. Purcell, Brandeis and the Progressive Constitution (2000)
38. Philippa Strum, Louis D. Brandeis: Justice for the People (1984)
39. Melvin I. Urofsky, Louis D. Brandeis and the Progressive Tradition (1981) [hereinafter Urofsky, Progressive Tradition]
40. Melvin I. Urofsky, Louis D. Brandeis: A Life (2009) [hereinafter Urofsky, A Life].
41. A few scholars have noted the puzzle, but none have tried to resolve it. See generally, e.g., MASON, supra note 13; Blasi, supra note 12; Gewirtz, supra note 7
42. Dorothy J. Glancy, The Invention of the Right to Privacy, 21 ARIZ. L. REV. 1 (1979)
43. Nathaniel L. Nathanson, The Philosophy of Mr. Justice Brandeis and Civil Liberties Today, 1979 U. ILL. L.F. 261 (1979)
44. Richard C. Turkington, The Legacy of the Warren and Brandeis Article: The Emerging Unemcumbered Constitutional Right to Informational Privacy, 10 N. ILL. U. L. REV. 479 (1990).
45. See SOLOVE, FUTURE OF REPUTATION, supra note 7 (regarding online speech)
46. Neil M. Richards, Intellectual Privacy, 87 TEX. L. Rev. 387 (2008) (regarding surveillance and wiretapping).
47. See, e.g., Amy Gajda, Judging Journalism: The Turn Toward Privacy and Judicial Regulation of the Press, 97 CAL. L. REV. 1039, 1045 (2009) (citing Brandeis)
48. Rodney A. Smolla, Information as Contraband: The First Amendment and Liability for Trafficking in Speech, 96 Nw. U. L. REV. 1099, 1130 (2002) (same)
49. Daniel J. Solove, Access and Aggregation: Public Records, Privacy, and the Constitution, 86 MINN. L. REV. 1137, 1174 (2002) (same)
50. Daniel J. Solove & Neil M. Richards, Rethinking Free Speech and Civil Liability, 109 COLUM. L. REV. 1650, 1658 (2009) (same); Volokh, supra note 7, at 1088 (same).
51. Louis D. Brandeis, Other People's money-and How the Bankers Use It 92 (1914).
52. See Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, 96 GEO. L.J. 123, 124-25 (2007) (summarizing and collecting the scholarly acclaim for the article).
53. ALAN WESTIN, PRIVACY AND FREEDOM 346-49 (1967)
54. Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Prosser's Privacy Law: A Mixed Legacy, 98 CAL. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2010).
55. See generally James H. Barron, Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HASV. L. REV. 193 (1890): Demystifying a Landmark Citation, 13 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 875 (1979)
56. Randall P. Bezanson, The Right to Privacy Revisited: Privacy, News, and Social Change, 1890-1990, 80 CAL. L. REV. 1133 (1992)
57. Amy Gajda, What if Samuel D. Warren Hadn't Married a Senator's Daughter?: Uncovering the Press Coverage that Led to the Right to Privacy, 2008 MICH. St. L. Rev. 35
58. Dorothy Glancy, The Invention of the Right to Privacy, 21 ARIZ. L. REV. 1 (1979)
59. Richards & Solove, supra note 18; Diane Zimmerman, Requiem for a Heavyweight: A Farewell to Warren and Brandeis's Privacy Tort, 68 CORNELL L. REV. 291 (1981).
60. MASON, supra note 13, at 56; STRUM, supra note 13, at 21, 30-34.
61. MASON, supra note 13, at 67.
62. Samuel D. Warren, Jr. & Louis D. Brandeis, The Watuppa Pond Cases, 2 HARV. L. REV. 195 (1888)
63. Warren S.D. Jr., Brandeis L.D. The law of ponds, 3 HARV. L. Rev. 1889 1 Melvin Urofsky suggests that the topic of pond law may have come from the importance of water power to their client, the Warren's family paper mill. UROFSKY, A LIFE, supra note 13, at 83
64. Lawrence Friedman, Guarding Life's Dark Secrets: Legal and Social Controls over Reputation, Propriety, and Privacy 215 (2007); Richards & Solove, supra note 18, at 129.
65. FRIEDMAN, supra note 24, at 221; ROCHELLE GURSTEIN, THE REPEAL OF RETICENCE: A History of America's Cultural and Legal Struggles over Free Speech, Obscenity, Sexual Liberation, and Modern Art 34-38 (1996)
66. Norman L. Rosenberg, Protecting the Best Men: An Interpretive History of the Law of Libel 191-92 (1986)
67. Michael Schudson, Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers 102 (1978)
68. G. Edward White, Tort Law in America: An Intellectual History 173 (expanded ed. 2003).
69. FRIEDMAN, supra note 24, at 214
70. DON R. PEMBER, PRIVACY AND THE PRESS 14 (1972)
71. Barron, supra note 20, at 889-91
72. Benjamin E. Bratman, Brandeis and Warren's The Right to Privacy and the Birth of the Right to Privacy, 69 TENN. L. REV. 623, 645-46 (2002)
73. E.L. Godkin, The Rights of the Citizen: IV.To His Own Reputation, 8 SCRIBNER'S Mag. 58, 66 (1890).
74. Robert E. Mensel, "Kodakers Lying in Wait": Amateur Photography and the Right of Privacy in New York, 1885-1915, 43 AM. Q. 1, 28 (1991)
75. See FRIEDMAN, supra note 24
76. These developments are detailed in Barron, supra note 20, at 884-87
77. Manola Gets an Injunction, N.Y. TIMES, June 18, 1890, at 2;
78. Photographed in Tights, N.Y. TIMES, June 15, 1890, at 2;
79. see also PEMBER, supra note 26, at 56 (noting the Manola case)
80. Godkin, supra note 26, at 65.
81. See 1 LETTERS OF LOUIS D. BRANDEIS 303 (David W. Levy & Melvin I. Urofsky, eds. 1971) [hereinafter LETTERS]. In an exchange of letters in April 1905, Brandeis remarked to Warren, "My own recollection is that it was not Godkin's article but a specific suggestion of yours, as well as your deepseated abhorrence of the invasions of social privacy, which led to our taking up the inquiry." Warren replied, "You are of course right about the genesis of the article." Letters, at 303.
82. For a detailed examination of the news reports that seem to have offended Warren, see Gajda, supra note 20, at 44-57.
83. See generally, e.g., Barron, supra note 20 (addressing the article's historical context and legacy)
84. Bratman, supra note 26 (same); Gajda, supra note 20 (same)
85. Kalven, supra note 3 (same)
86. Irwin R. Kramer, The Birth of Privacy Law: A Century Since Warren and Brandeis, 39 CATH. U. L. REV. 703 (1990) (same)
87. Post, supra note 7 (same)
88. William L. Prosser, Privacy, 48 CAL. L. REV. 383, 388-89 (1960) (same)
89. Zimmerman, supra note 20 (same).
90. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 195.
91. Id. at 195.
92. Mat 196.
93. WHITE, supra note 25, at 102-03.
94. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 196.
95. Id.
96. Id. at 196.
97. Barron, supra note 20, at 884-87; James Q. Whitman, The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty, 113 YALE L.J. 1151,1205 (2004).
98. FRIEDMAN, supra note 24, at 4.
99. Neil M. Richards, Privacy and the Limits of History, 21 YALE J.L. & HUMAN. 1, 168 (2009).
100. Friedman, supra note 24, at 214-15.
101. See Anita L. Allen & Erin Mack, How Privacy Got Its Gender, 10 N. ILL. U. L. REV. 441, 441 (1990) ("The privacy tort was the brainchild of nineteenth-century men of privilege and it shows⋯. [A]s conceived by Warren and Brandeis and initially applied by the courts, the privacy tort bears the unmistakable mark of male hegemony.").
102. Susan E. Gallagher, A Man's Home: Rethinking the Origins of the Public/Private Dichotomy in American Law, HISTORY OF PRIVACY, 26.http://www.historyofprivacy.net(last visited Sept. 9, 2010) (describing Warren and Brandeis as part of a "revolt against modernity" and "an attempt to preserve the traditional family from both the unsettling effects of the women's rights movement and the invasive aspects of mass culture, especially as embodied in the popular press.").
103. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 195.
104. Id. at 214.
105. Id. at 216.
106. Id. at 219-20.
107. Id. at 198-206.
108. Id. at 207-12.
109. Id. at 212.
110. Mat 207.
111. Id. at 206.
112. Id. at 214.
113. Mat216.
114. Id. at 219.
115. Id. at 217.
116. Both libel and slander protect a property-like interest in reputation. At common law, a libel was "any writings, pictures or the like" which exposed another to "public hatred, contempt and ridicule." 4 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES.
117. 150. Slander was speaking or writing against, cursing or wishing ill, or giving out scandalous stories concerning another.
118. Id. at 123. In the absence of a few special circumstances, plaintiffs could not recover for slander without proof of a "special harm," a "harm of material and generally of a pecuniary nature." Restatement (First) of Torts § 575 cmts. a, b (1938).
119. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 217. Id. at 197.
120. Id. at 218.
121. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985).
122. Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
123. N. Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Under modern law, when a defamation plaintiff seeks punitive damages against the press for publishing matters of public concern, she must prove "actual malice"-either intentionally or recklessly false statements of fact.
124. See ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1465-76 (2009).
125. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 218.
126. 376 U.S. 254.
127. Solove & Richards, supra note 16, at 1658.
128. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 216.
129. Id. at 214.
130. Id. at 216.
131. Id.
132. Id.
133. Id. at 214.
134. See, e.g., Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
135. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 414 (1992).
136. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 54-56 (1988).
137. See Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 769-70 (1985).
138. Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 499 n.3 (1975).
139. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342 (1974).
140. Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 388 (1967).
141. N. Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 271-72 (1964).
142. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433 (1963).
143. See Dun & Bradstreet, 472 U.S. at 769-70.
144. Cox Broad. Corp., 420 U.S. at 499 n.3.
145. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342.
146. Time, Inc., 385 U.S. at 374.
147. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 271-72.
148. Button, 371 U.S. at 433.
149. Ken I. Kersch, The Reconstruction of Constitutional Privacy Rights and the New American State, 16 STUD. Am. Pol. Dev. 61, 76 (2002).
150. See Morton J. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1870-1960, at 205 (1992).
151. Michael Kent Curtis, Free Speech, 'The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in America's History 8-9 (2000); Rabban, supra note 10, at 131.
152. See, e.g., Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 51-52 (1919) (upholding conspiracy conviction under the Espionage Act for obstructing the draft in wartime)
153. Fox v. Washington 236 U.S. 273, 277-78 (1915) (upholding state statute punishing advocacy that produced disrespect for law)
154. Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907) (upholding a prior restraint against the press)
155. Commonwealth v. Davis, 39 N.E. 113, 113 (Mass. 1895) (Holmes's rejection of free speech claims in a public park)
156. MARK A. GRABER, TRANSFORMING FREE SPEECH: THE AMBIGUOUS Legacy of Civil Libertarianism 106-12 (1991).
157. PEMBER, supra note 26, at 57, 77.
158. See also Corliss v. Walker, 57 F. 434 (C.C Mass. 1893) (denying enjoinment of publication of private facts for free press policy reasons)
159. Atkinson v. Doherty, 80 N.W. 285 (Mich. 1899) (any right to privacy in a person's image ends at death).
160. Pavesich v. N. Eng. Life Ins. Co., 50 S.E. 68, 74 (Ga. 1905).
161. Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 64 N.E. 442 (N.Y. 1902).
162. E.g., Denis O'Brien, The Right of Privacy, 2 COLUM. L. REV. 437, 440-42 (1902) (arguing that any right to privacy should be recognized by the legislature)
163. Herbert Spencer Hadley, The Right to Privacy, 3 N.W. U. L. REV. 1 (1895) (critiquing Warren & Brandeis on equity grounds).
164. UROFKSY, A LIFE, supra note 13, at 98.
165. Letter from Louis D. Brandeis to Alice Goldmark (Nov. 29, 1890) in 1 LETTERS, supra note 32, at 94-95.
166. UROFSKY, A LIFE, supra note 13, at 102.
167. See Pavesich v. N. Eng. Life Ins. Co., 50 S.E. 68, 74 (Ga. 1905)
168. Letter from Louis D. Brandeis to Andrew Jackson Cobb (Apr. 17, 1905), in 1 LETTERS, supra note 32, at 303-04
169. Letter from Louis D. Brandeis to James Bettner Ludlow (Apr. 20, 1905), in 1 LETTERS, supra note 32, at 306.
170. Letter from Louis D. Brandeis to Samuel D. Warren (Apr. 8, 1905), in 1 LETTERS, supra note 32, at 302-03.
171. Letter from Samuel D. Warren to Louis D. Brandeis (Apr. 10, 1905), quoted in 1 LETTERS, supra note 32, at 303.
172. STRUM, supra note 13, at 325.
173. See MASON, supra note 13, at 70, 564, 567-68 (devoting limited attention to privacy).
174. Letter from Louis D. Brandeis to Edwin Bacon, quoted in THE BRANDEIS GUIDE TO THE MODERN WORLD 200-01 (Alfred Leif ed., 1941), and UROFSKY, A LIFE, supra note 13, at 87.
175. Letter from Louis D. Brandeis to Alfred Brandeis (Mar. 20, 1886) quoted in UROFSKY, A LIFE, supra note 13, at 87.
176. UROFSKY, A LIFE, supra note 13, at 565.
177. Letter from Louis D. Brandeis to Alice Goldmark (Feb. 26, 1891), in 1 LETTERS, supra note 32, at 100.
178. LETTERS, supra note 32, at 102; MASON, supra note 13, at 94 n.
179. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 216.
180. Id.
181. Id.
182. MASON, supra note 13, at 94.
183. See, e.g., MASON, supra note 13, at 249-50; UROFSKY, A LIFE, supra note 13, at 63, 130-31, 477.
184. UROFSKY, PROGRESSIVE TRADITION, supra note 13, at 50.
185. Kersch, supra note 78, at 77 (2002).
186. BRANDEIS, supra note 17, at.62-63.
187. Id. at 94-97.
188. Id. at 101-04.
189. Id. at 92.
190. Id. at 101-02.
191. Id. at 102-04.
192. Id.
193. Id. at 162-88.
194. Kersch, supra note 78, at 76.
195. James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed 80 (1998).
196. Kersch, supra note 78, at 62.
197. Melvin I. Urofsky, Louis D. Brandeis: Teacher, 45 BRANDEIS L.J. 733, 733-34 (2007) (quoting Ernest Poole, Brandeis, A Remarkable Record of Unselfish Work Done in the Public Interest, AM. MAG., Feb. 1911).
198. Louis D. Brandeis, The Living Law, 10 ILL. L. REV. 461 (1916)
199. UROFSKY, PROGRESSIVE Tradition, supra note 13, at 50.
200. 208 U.S. 412 (1908).
201. See Barry Cushman, Some Varieties and Vicissitudes of Lochnerism, 85 B.U. L. REV. 881,932-33 (2005).
202. Urofsky, Progressive Tradition, supra note 13, at 53
203. see also Edward A. Purcell, Jr., Brandeis and the Progressive Constitution 166 (2000).
204. DiSanto v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 273 U.S. 34, 43 (1927) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
205. UROFKSY, A LIFE, supra note 13, at 217.
206. 264 U.S. 504 (1924).
207. Cushman, supra note 120, at 953.
208. Jay Burns, 264 U.S. at 533 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
209. Cushman, supra note 120, at 953.
210. Jay Burns, 264 U.S. at 533 (Brandeis, J. dissenting). In a similar vein
211. see Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590, 600 (1917) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) ("Whether a measure relating to the public welfare is arbitrary or unreasonable, whether it has no substantial relation to the end proposed, is obviously not to be determined by assumptions or by a priori reasoning. The judgment should be based upon a consideration of relevant facts, actual or possible-Ex facto jus oritur. That ancient rule must prevail in order that we may have a system of living law.")
212. G. Edward White, The First Amendment Comes of Age: The Emergence of Free Speech in Twentieth Century America, 95 MICH. L. REV. 299, 310-11 (1996)
213. see also GRABER, supra note 81, at 41; RABBAN, supra notelO, at 131.
214. GRABER, supra note 81, at 11
215. see also Cover, supra note 10, at 365-69 (discussing skepticism of popular government in the writings of influential progressive Walter Lippmann).
216. Id.
217. See supra Part LA.
218. 248 U.S. 215(1918).
219. Id. at 235.
220. Id. at 263.
221. Id. at 267.
222. Id.
223. Id.
224. Id. at 267.
225. See Cover, supra note 10, at 370-71.
226. Id. at 371.
227. E.g., Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273 (1914)
228. Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1906).
229. David Kennedy, Over Here: The First World War and American Society 24-26 (1980).
230. RABBAN, supra note 10, at 256; RONALD SCHAFFER, AMERICA IN THE GREAT WAR: THE RISE OF THE WELFARE STATE 15 (1991)
231. Phillippa Strum, Brandeis: The Public Activist and Freedom of Speech, 45 BRANDEIS L. J. 659, 668 (2007)
232. RABBAN, supra note 10, at 250.
233. 249 U.S. 185.
234. Id. at 183.
235. Id. at 185.
236. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
237. Id. at 50-51.
238. Id. at 52.
239. GRABER, supra note 81, at 106-08; RABBAN, supra note 10, at 282
240. White, supra note 129, at 318.
241. Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (1919)
242. Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919).
243. Cover, supra note 10, at 374 (quoting Brandeis-Frankfurter Conversations, in BRANDEIS PAPERS (on file at Harvard Law School)).
244. UROFSKY, A LIFE, supra note 13, at 533-54.
245. Gerald Gunther, Learned Hand: The Man and the Judge 161-67 (1994)
246. Gerald Gunther, Learned Hand and the Origins of Modern First Amendment Doctrine: Some Fragments of History, 27 STAN. L. REV. 719, 732 (1975)
247. See Bradley C. Bobertz, The Brandeis Gambit: The Making of America's First Freedom, 1909-1931, 40 WM. & MARY L. REV. 557, 607-11 (1999) (discussing Danger Ahead, 108 NATION 186 (1919))
248. Freedom of Speech: Whose Concern?, 18 NEW REPUBLIC 102 (1919)The Call to Toleration, 20 NEW REPUBLIC 360 (1919)
249. see also Strum, supra note 144, at 675.
250. Zechariah Chaffee, Jr., Freedom of Speech in War Times, 32 Harv. L. Rev. 932 (1919).
251. STRUM, supra note 13, at 675-76; UROFSKY, A LIFE, supra note 13, at 553.
252. Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 466, 482 (1920) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
253. UROFSKY, A LIFE, supra note 13, at 555-56.
254. Id. Brandeis changed his mind on many issues over the course of his life-in addition to privacy and free speech, he came to reject the Lochner regime of constitutional rights, and to embrace both women's suffrage and Zionism.
255. Id. at 214, 365, 399.
256. Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
257. UROFSKY, A LIFE, supra note 13, at 553.
258. Cover, supra note 10, at 381.
259. 251 U.S. 467, 482 (1920) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
260. 252 U.S. 239, 253 (1920) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
261. 254 U.S. 325 (1920) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
262. United States ex rel. Milwaukee Soc. Democratic Publ'g Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407, 417-36 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
263. 274 U.S. 357, 372 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Although Brandeis concurred in the result for technical reasons, the opinion was a dissent in all other respects. In fact, the opinion started off as a dissent in another case that involved even more dangerous revolutionary speech than the Whitney case did, involving the prosecution of a prominent national figure in the national Communist Party.
264. See Cover, supra note 10, at 384.
265. As Bradley Bobertz puts the point well, "[although he usually agreed with Brandeis, Holmes never really moved beyond his Abrams position." Bobertz, supra note 157, at 632.
266. 268 U.S. 652 (1925) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
267. 279 U.S. 644 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Schwimmer was a Naturalization Act of 1906 case that is significant only for Holmes's characteristically witty epigram that "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought-not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."
268. Id.
269. LOUIS MENAND, THE METAPHYSICAL CLUB 4 (2001)
270. Vincent Blasi, Holmes and the Marketplace of Ideas, 2004 SUP. CT. HEV. 1, 2
271. Thomas C. Grey, Holmes, Pragmatism, and Democracy, 71 OR. L. Rev. 521, 523 (1992).
272. White, supra note 129, at 325.
273. Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239, 273 (1920) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
274. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
275. Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 482, 495 (1920) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
276. Id. at 482-83 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
277. See id. at 484-95 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
278. 252 U.S. at 251-52.
279. Id. at 267, 269-70 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
280. Id. at 269 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
281. Id. at 269 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
282. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S., 357 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
283. See LEONARD W. LEVY, EMERGENCE OF A FREE PRESS 280 (1985) (arguing that Revolutionary-era beliefs in a free press were less robust than modern libertarian conceptions).
284. Blasi, supra note 12, at 671.
285. Most notably James Madison and Learned Hand. See, e.g., JAMES MADISON, THE Virginia Report of 1799-1800, Touching the Alien and Sedition Laws
286. Together with the Virginia RESOLUTIONS 227 (J.W. Randolph ed., 1850)
287. Masses Pub. Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535, 540 (S.D.N.Y. 1919) (Hand, J.).
288. Whitney, 274 U.S. at 375 (Brandeis, J., concurring).
289. Letter from Louis D. Brandeis to Alice Goldmark (Oct. 27, 1890), in 1 LETTERS, supra note 32, at 94.
290. Letter from Louis D. Brandeis to Alice Goldmark (Dec. 9, 1890), in 1 LETTERS, supra note 32, at 96.
291. Letter from Louis D. Brandeis to Robert W. Bruere (Feb. 25, 1922), quoted in MASON, supra note 13, at 585.
292. Whitney, 274 U.S. at 375 (Brandeis, J., concurring).
293. Blasi, supra note 12, at 674.
294. Id. at 674-75.
295. Whitney, 274 U.S. at 378 (Brandeis, J., concurring).
296. 274 U.S. 380, 387 (1927).
297. 301 U.S. 242 (1937).
298. 299 U.S. 353 (1937).
299. DeJonge, 299 U.S. at 365; Herndon, 301 U.S. at 247.
300. 376 U.S. 254, 272 (1964)
301. see also NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433 (1963) (first using the "breathing space" analogy).
302. 418 U.S. 323, 339 (1974)
303. accord Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of the Univ. of N.Y., 360 U.S. 684, 688-89 (1959).
304. Solove & Richards, supra note 16, at 1657-58.
305. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 270 (quoting Whitney v. California, 274 U.S 357, 375-76 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring)).
306. Solove & Richards, supra note 16, at 1657.
307. Blasi, supra note 12, at 692-95 (collecting examples).
308. 403 U.S. 15, 24 (1971).
309. Id. (citing Whitney, 21A U.S. at 375-77 (Brandeis, J., concurring)).
310. FRIEDMAN, supra note 24, at 214-15
311. see also Richards, supra note 44, at 166.
312. FRIEDMAN, supra note 24, at 213; Danielle Citron, Mainstreaming Privacy Torts, 98 CAL. L. Rev. (forthcoming Dec. 2010).
313. IJROFSKY, ALIFE, supra note 13, at 154.
314. See infra Part III.
315. Int'l News Serv. v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 262 (1918) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
316. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 214-20.
317. See supra notes 39-41 and accompanying text.
318. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
319. 283 U.S. 697, 737-38 (1931).
320. Id. at 720.
321. Fred w. Friendly, Minnesota Rag: The Dramatic Story of the Landmark Supreme Court Case that Gave New Meaning to the Freedom of the Press 130-31 (1981).
322. Brandeis Criticizes Minnesota Gag Law, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 31, 1931, at 6.
323. See FRIENDLY, supra note 219, at 45-51 (quoting anti-semitic articles and describing the authors' motivations and the public's reactions).
324. Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union, 301 U.S. 468, 472 (1937).
325. Id. at 477.
326. Id. at 478.
327. Id. at 477-78.
328. Id. at 479.
329. Id.
330. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S 357, 375 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
331. One of the hallmarks of Lochner-era. jurisprudence was that a law which took the property of A and gave it to B was repugnant to due process of law.
332. See Cushman, supra note 120, at 909 (citing Smyth v. Ames, 134 U.S. 418, 458 (1890)).
333. Unsurprisingly, then, the Lochner traditionalists-the "Four Horsemen" of Justices Butler, Van Devanter, McReynolds, and Sutherland-dissented on precisely this basis, arguing that the state statute gave the union, which was not in competition with Senn, the power to take away his livelihood. Senn, 301 U.S. at 489-92 (Butler, J., dissenting).
334. Senn, 301 U.S. at 480.
335. Id. at 481-82.
336. Id. at 482.
337. Id. at 482 n.5.
338. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 195.
339. Richards & Solove, supra note 19, at ms. 9.
340. See, e.g., Pavesich v. N. Eng. Life Ins. Co., 50 S.E. 68, 74 (Ga. 1905) (insurance company appropriated man's photograph for newspaper advertisement)
341. Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 64 N.E. 442, 541 (N.Y. 1902) (portrait of attractive young woman used in flour advertisements).
342. 299 S.W. 967, 968 (Ky. 1927).
343. E.g., Leon Green, The Right of Privacy, 27 ILL. L. REV. 237 (1932)
344. Rufus Lisle, The Right of Privacy (A Contra View), 19 Ky. L.J. 137 (1931)
345. Roy Moreland, The Right of Privacy Today, 19 KY. L.J. 101 (1931)
346. George Ragland, Jr., The Right of Privacy, 17 KY. L.J. 85 (1929).
347. See MASON, supra note 13, at 70, 564, 567-68 (devoting limited attention to privacy).
348. 277 U.S. 438, 471 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
349. See, e.g., Daniel J. Solove & Paul Schwartz, Information Privacy Law 33 (3d ed. 2008) ("Brandeis, then a Supreme Court justice, wrote a dissent that has had a significant influence on Fourth Amendment law.").
350. William J. Brennan, Jr., In Defense of Dissents, 37 HASTINGS L.J. 427, 432 (1986).
351. 277 U.S. at 466.
352. Id. at 465. The notes taken from the wiretaps alone totaled 775 typewritten pages.
353. Id. at 471 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
354. Id. at 464-66 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
355. See infra note 263 and accompanying text.
356. 116 U.S. 616(1886).
357. Olmstead, 277 U.S. at 473 (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (quoting Boyd, 116 U.S. at 630) (internal quotations omitted).
358. Id. at 473-74 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
359. Id. at 474 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
360. See U.S. CONST. Amend. IV (protecting "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures").
361. Olmstead, 277 U.S. at 478 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
362. Id. at 478-79 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
363. Louis D. Brandeis, The Living Law, 10 ILL. L. REV. 461, 461 (1916).
364. Olmstead, 277 U.S. at 478 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
365. Id. at 474 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
366. U.S. 325, 334 (1920) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). 155.
367. Id. at 325.
368. Id. at 326.
369. Id. at 332-33.
370. Id. at 338 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
371. Id. at 335 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
372. Id. at 335-36 (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).
373. Id. at 343 (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (emphasis added)
374. Cover, supra note 10, at 377.
375. Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 466, 495 (1920) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
376. United States ex rel. Milwaukee Soc. Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407, 417-36 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
377. Id. at 431.
378. See Blasi, supra note 12, at 673-77 (providing examples).
379. See Melvin I. Urofsky, The Brandeis-Frankfurter Conversations, 1985 SUP. Ct. Rev. 299, 320 (1985) (published and edited version of Frankfurter's notes). The other two rights were the "right to choice of profession" and the "right to locomotion."
380. Id.
381. 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
382. UROFSKY, A LIFE, supra note 13, at 619.
383. 272. Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government 27 (1948).
384. See supra Part LA. For an argument that even modern information privacy rules are inconsistent with equality principles
385. see Lior Jacob Strahilevitz, Privacy Versus Antidiscrimination, 75 U. CHI. L. REV. 363 (2008).
386. Aa might Warren and Brandeis in 1890.
387. See supra notes 68-74.
388. See, e.g., GEOFFREY R. STONE ET AL., THE FIRST AMENDMENT 150-51 (3d ed. 2008) (collecting cases).
389. See Solove, Virtues, supra note 7, at 1030.
390. Richards & Solove, supra note 18, at 166-72.
391. Mosley v. News Group Newspapers, Ltd., [2008] EWHC (QB) 1777, [232-36], [2008] E.M.L.R. 20 (Eng.).Under U.K. law, publication of details of the sexual activities of celebrities violates the right to privacy unless the facts disclosed constitute "a significant breach of the criminal law."
392. Id. at [127].
393. See supra notes 50-85 and accompanying text.
394. See WHITE, supra note 25, at 174.
395. Richards & Solove, supra note 18 (ms. at 1).
396. See, e.g., cases cited supra note 75.
397. Solove & Richards, supra note 16, at 1660.
398. See Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 527-28 (2001) (refusing to prohibit a radio station from publishing newsworthy information of public concern, even where such information had been illegally obtained by a third party)
399. Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 526 (1989) (holding that a state statute prohibiting the publication of the name of a rape victim was unconstitutional as applied to a newspaper that had obtained the name from a "publicly released police report")
400. Smith v. Daily Mail Publ'g Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979) (holding the First Amendment prohibits a state from punishing a newspaper for publishing the name of a juvenile murder suspect because the press lawfully obtained the information)
401. Okla. Publ'g Corp. v. Okla. Cnty Dist. Court, 430 U.S. 308 (1977) (holding the First Amendment prevents a state court from prohibiting the media from publishing the name of a juvenile in a proceeding that a reporter attended)
402. Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975) (holding the name of a rape victim obtained by the press from public records cannot be prevented from being published by statute or made the basis for liability under the nondisclosure tort).
403. Citron, Mainstreaming Tort Privacy, supra note 210 (ms. at 2)
404. Gelman L. , Privacy, Free Speech, and "Blurry-Edged" Social Networks, 50 B.C. L. REV. 1315 (2010)
405. Richards & Solove, supra note 18 (ms. at 35).
406. For my own forthcoming suggestions
407. see Richards & Solove, Prosser's Privacy Law, supra note 19, at ms. 30-50. For other recent but different proposals
408. see Citron, supra note 210, at ms.25-29
409. SOLOVE, FUTURE OF REPUTATION, supra note 7, at 161-88
410. Lior Jacob Strahilevitz, A Social Networks Theory of Privacy, 72 U. CHI. L. REV. 919 (2005).
411. Zimmerman, supra note 20; Volokh, supra note 7.
412. See, e.g., Michaels v. Internet Entm't Group, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 823 (CD. Cal. 1998) (granting a preliminary injunction barring the Internet distribution of a sex video made by celebrity couple plaintiffs, notwithstanding the defendant's claims of newsworthiness).
413. Richards, supra note 7, at 1165-74.
414. IMS Health, Inc. v. Ayotte, 550 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008) (upholding a law restricting pharmaceutical company usage of physician prescription records for marketing purposes).
415. See Richards & Solove, supra note 18, at 181-82. We have elsewhere argued that confidentiality-based nondisclosure rules arising in the context of relationships avoid many of the First Amendment problems caused by tort privacy nondisclosure rules face.
416. See Solove & Richards, supra note 16, at 1697-98.
417. Richards, Intellectual Privacy, supra note 15, at 389.
418. There are, of course, a few exceptions. For one example
419. see Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564-65 (1969) ("[The] right to receive information and ideas ⋯is fundamental to our free society .⋯[A]lso fundamental is the right to be free ⋯ from unwanted governmental intrusions into one's privacy.⋯If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no ⋯power to control men's minds.").
420. Richards, supra note 15, at 389.
421. See Kalven, supra note 3, at 327; Prosser, supra note 7, at 383; Bratman, supra note 26, at 624.
422. See SOLOVE, FUTURE, supra note 7, at 161-63 (collecting examples).
423. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in information that is shared with third parties.
424. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443 (1976) (financial records shared with bank)
425. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 745-46 (1979) (telephone call records kept by telephone company).
426. See Richards, supra note 15, at 436-37
427. see also Katherine J. Strandburg, Freedom of Association in a Networked World: First Amendment Regulation of Relational Surveillance, 49 B.C. L. REV. 741 (2008).
428. In one exceptional case to this trend, Google was able to quash a subpoena that directed it to turn over millions of search results to the federal government. Google was apparently able to prevail not because of the privacy of its users, but rather because of its own economic interest in the goodwill of its users believing that the company was protecting their privacy. Arshad Mohammed, Google Refuses Demand for Search Information, WASH. POST, Jan. 20, 2006, at Al. .
429. MEIKLEJOHN, supra note 272, at 26.