Fw: [at-l] The "Right" to Solitude (was: ATC ad policy)

[dfaddleton@mindspring.com (David)]

----- Original Message -----
From: "David" <dfaddleton@mindspring.com>
To: "Jim Mayer" <jmayer@rochester.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: [at-l] The "Right" to Solitude (was: ATC ad policy)


> > Oh, I do understand, and you're right... most people don't.  Our culture
> has
> > a well developed sense of the "right" of individuals to DO things, but
> very
> > little feeling for the "right" to be left alone . . .
>
> I liked your post and you're right . . . just want to add 2 or 3 cents
worth
> of opinion, largely legal . . .
>
> The right to solitude exists and its violation constitutes a tort in most
if
> not all states (I haven't looked in ages). Georgia was the first state to
> recognize this right in Pavesich v. New England Life, 122 Ga. 190 (1905).
Go
> to http://dfaddleton.home.mindspring.com/pavesich.htm to read the historic
> opinion which uses the words "right to be left alone."
>
> This tort has less than 100 years of existence and remains largely
uncharted
> territory in judicial opinion. It is often called the "right to privacy."
> Courts are still struggling to define this tort and without much more time
> and litigation lawyers can't really explain its limits. Throughout most of
> the last century, the jurists who have dealt with the question have
focused
> on the "trespass" theory of the right, which requires an intrusion similar
> to, but not identical with, a trespass upon land or personal property.
> Generally and practically, this means you must have some right to occupy
> some real property before you have the right and the law affords you any
> protection. When you occupy public property, such as wilderness areas or
the
> Appalachian Trail, you don't have the same expectation of privacy as you
do
> in your apartment or home or car. Moreover, others have a right to occupy
> nearby locations in the same vicinity as you when you are on public
> property.
>
> The requirement of an intrusion, similar to a trespass, has undergone some
> changes in the last part of the 20th century. Other states have gone
beyond
> Georgia's definition of privacy to include "psychological" intrusions,
> including such intrusions on public property, such as may occur in the
> context, for example, of a stalking. Prosser, the great 20th century
> observer of tort law, wrote a definition of privacy which excluded the
> "intrusion similar to a trespass" language. Georgia appears on the verge
of
> adopting Prosser's definition. See my article: The Invasion of Solitude
Tort
> in Georgia: Recent Developments, available at
>
http://dfaddleton.home.mindspring.com/Invasion%20of%20Solitude%20in%20Georgi
> a.htm. In it I cite Georgia cases, many of which I have also made
available
> on the net. There you will find two cases which, I argue, suggest that the
> "right to solitude" exists on public thoroughfares (which should include
the
> Appalachian Trail) and includes "psychological" intrusions quite apart
from
> intrusions similar to a trespass.
>
> All of this, generally, supports your observation about the poorly
developed
> "right to solitude" in the United States. The prior language in judicial
> opinions about intrusions similar to a trespass has proved difficult, in
> some cases, to overcome, even when the Georgia Supreme Court appears to
have
> abandoned that requirement. Anyone who wants to litigate in this area
should
> have a deep pocket and insist not only on careful reading of precedent,
but
> should require their lawyer to read the law journals and cite from them in
> their briefs . . . something many lawyers don't like doing . . .
>