Privacy: An Answer To Dean Prosser Case Analysis

1954 Words8 Pages
INTRODUCTION. “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail its roof may shake the wind may blow through it the storm may enter, the rain may enter but the King of England cannot enter all his force dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.” These words from the Semayne’s case , decided in 1603, capture the nascent views on privacy if discussed about in a legal sense. Philosophically, privacy can be traced back to the times of Aristotle, ancient India and is epidemically present in numerous religious texts and social customs. Sometimes a classification hard to justify intellectually may nevertheless be made important through social arrangements. Credits to our shared humanity bred…show more content…
Hereby, eliminating some confusion. Nonetheless, Posner 's has engendered substantial academic debate but has had little real-world influence. Retorting the above Edward Bloustein , in his article, Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser proposes a general stand on privacy aimed at unifying the divergence that Prosser’s article did. Bloustein writes, despite the tremendous influence Dean Prosser has on tort law, if his case analysis (more than 300 of them) were reckoned with a sense of literature and prudence, they merely are just about an individual’s interest in “inviolate personality” or human dignity. Such interests being firmly embedded in our shared legal and cultural heritage. Further asserting that a man with no privacy granted by the state goes against the very concept of individuality, which forms the core of a nation’s constitution. Also, adding that recognising the core of privacy is more important rather than bifurcating privacy into a tetrad, an inevitable result flowing from Prosser’s…show more content…
Makes a pertinent observation regarding the protection of privacy, by the US supreme court, in the famous Grisworld case. Judge Douglas who announced the leading judgement on this, did not derive the right to privacy from any pre-existing right. But his judgement propounded a new right all together, which had no foundation in the bill of rights. Hereby, according to his view overstepping the duty line by pronouncing a new law rather than interpreting it. Heron’s argument however failed to win the day with many critics slamming his views by saying, liberty is a concept which is broader than privacy and issues or claims relating to privacy are a sub-set of claims to
Open Document