Description: The seminar examines privacy law in the U.S., European Union, and elsewhere. We explore the value of privacy, the role of technology in shaping societal expectations of privacy, and how we are to weigh the competing interests we have in privacy on the one hand, and in publicity, access to information, freedom of speech, and crime control on the other. By focusing on differences in the law in the U.S. and in Europe the course provides an introduction to comparative approaches to law as well as an introduction to the European Convention on Human Rights and tort law in the U.S. This course has no pre- or co- requisites. It contributes to the Honors College curriculum as an elective course for Law and Society, Political Science, and satisfies the International Studies graduation requirement.

Requirements: Grades will be based on participation in class discussions (20%), 3 substantial quizzes (totalling 30%), a group project (20%), and 2 papers averaging 5 pages each (30% total). Attendance is important. Missed quizzes cannot be made up, and each unexcused absence beyond 2 will result in an automatic 1/3 letter grade reduction for the participation part of your grade. Each student will be required to lead discussion on one case (from the cases marked with an *) and to meet with the instructor prior to leading that discussion.
Students are strongly advised to take notes on the readings and class discussions. Sample briefs are online. For quizzes, you may use any notes you authored. Be sure to bring to each class the reading for that day's class.
Students agree to adhere to the honor code (http://www.fau.edu/divdept/honcol/academics_honor_code.htm). You are encouraged to discuss course material with each other, but with the exception of the group project all assignments must be entirely your own work, and you are not permitted to copy or borrow from the drafts, outlines, or reading notes of others. If you have any doubts about what constitutes plagiarism or a violation of the honor code, consult with the professor beforehand.

Office Hours: Before and after class, or stop by HC 133 any time, no appointment needed. To arrange to meet at a specific time, phone 6-8670 or email me at tunick@fau.edu

Readings: All required readings are available in the Course Readings section of Blackboard (indicated by BB) or online using links below. Complete text of cases is also available at Campus Research Law (aka Westlaw) or Lexis-Nexis via the FAU library database, where you can also find law review articles. Complete versions of non-U.S. cases are usually available online and may be found by a google search. Some recommended readings are available in the 'Recommended' subfolder of the Course Readings section in Blackboard (indicated by BBR).

Introduction
1/5. Introduction: Privacy; legal research
Rdg (1 page): Sweenek v Pathe News, 16 F Supp 746 (1936) (handout/BB)

1/7. Balancing privacy with other values
Rdg: (25 pages) Tunick, Balancing Privacy and Free Speech: Unwanted Attention in the Age of Social Media (2015), pp. 1-21 (BB); Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Company, 154 Cal. App. 3d 1040 (1984)(BB)
Recommended film: Snap Decision, dir. Metzger (2001)(on reserve)
Recommended: Hatton v. U.K. [2001] 34 EHRR 1, online (holding that noise from airport violates ECHR Article 8 privacy rights); Daniel Solove, "'I've got nothing to hide' and other misunderstandings of Privacy," 44 San Diego L.R. 745 (2007).

1/12. Privacy law in the U.S.: the 4 privacy torts
Rdg (18 pages):
1) Welsh v. Pritchard, 241 P.2d 816 (1952)(BB)--intrusion upon seclusion
2) Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal. App. 285 (1931)(BB)--public disclosure of private facts
3) Peoples Bank and Trust Co. v. Globe Intern., 786 F. Supp. 791 (1992)(BB)--false light
4) Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 34 Cal.App.4th 790 (1995)(BB)--misappropriation of one's name or likeness
Recommended: Prosser, "Privacy: A Legal Analysis" (reviewing the 4 privacy torts), California Law Review 48:338-423 (1960)(BBR)

1/14. Privacy law in Europe
Rdg (55 pp + online readings):  Morton, 'The European Human Rights System' (BB); European Convention on Human Rights, online (read Articles 8 and 10); Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, online (read introductory material and select the pdf of the Charter text and read Preamble, Articles 7, 8, 11, 52 and skim rest); Directive 95/46/EC, online (read Articles 5-14); Malone v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1979] 2 All ER 620 (BB); Malone v. U.K. [1985] 7 EHRR 14 (BB); Volker und Markus v Land Hessen (CJEU 2011)(BB).
Recommended: R. Daniel Kelemen, Eurolegalism (Harvard Univ Press, 2011), pp. 1-7 (BBR); Bonnici, "Exploring the non-absolute nature of the right to data protection," Intl Rev of Law, Computers & Tech 28(2):131-43 (2014)(BBR)

1/19. No Class (Martin Luther King Day)

1/21. Rdg (65 pp): Wacks, Privacy and Media Freedom (2013), Preface and excerpts from chs 3-5 (BB)
Recommended: Julian Petley, "Public Interest or Public Shaming?" in Media and Public Shaming, ed. Petley (2013)(BBR)
Quiz 1 (covering all material up to and including 1/21)

The value of privacy: Why is privacy important? Is a lack of privacy objectively harmful, or is privacy merely a subjective preference or taste?

1/26. Defining privacy and understanding its value I (reputation; avoiding unjust punishment; property; intimacy; the need to compartmentalize)
Rdg (34 pp): Tunick, Balancing Privacy and Free Speech, ch. 2 (pp. 23-51); Leduc v. Roman [2009] O.J. No. 681 (BB); and Knox v. Nathan Applebaum Holdings Ltd.* [2013] O.J. No. 5981 (BB)
For those interested: "Court weighs Facebook's Right to Challenge Search Warrants on Users' Behalf," NYT Dec. 11, 2014, online (involving use of warrants to search for Facebook photos to aid in disability fraud investigations)

1/28. Defining privacy and understanding its value II (trust, dignity, and respect for persons)
Rdg (35 pp): Tunick, Balancing Privacy and Free Speech, pp. 51-61, 65-71, 145-53 (BB); Smayda v. U.S., 352 F.2d 251* (1965)(BB)
Recommended: McClurg, "Kiss and Tell: Protecting Intimate Relationship Privacy through Implied Contracts of Confidentiality," University of Cincinnati Law Review 74: 887-939 (2006); Benn, "Privacy, Freedom, and Respect for Persons"(BBR)

The Value of Free Speech:
2/2. Mill's defense of free speech
Rdg (52 pp): J.S. Mill, 'On Liberty', ch. 2 (BB); Tunick, Balancing Privacy and Free Speech, pp. 90-95 (BB); J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District 650 F.3d 915* (2011)(BB)

2/4. Key U.S. cases
Rdg (33 pp): New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S.Ct. 1207* (2011); Bonome v. Kaysen, 32 Media L. Rptr 1520 (2004)(all in BB)
For those interested: Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), online; Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985), online.

2/9. U.S. defenders of free speech and the 1st Amendment
Rdg (36 pp): Eugene Volokh, "Freedom of Speech and Informational Privacy: The Troubling Implications of a Right to Stop People from Speaking about You," Stanford Law Review 52(5):1049-1124 (2000)(BB)

2/11. Does the 1st Amendment apply to ordinary citizens as opposed to members of the 'press'?
Rdg (25 pp): Tunick, "Balancing Privacy and Free Speech," pp. 109-13; Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale, 20 A.3d 364 (2011)*; Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox, 2011 WL 5999334 (D.Or. 2011); and 740 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 2014)(all in BB)
Paper 1 Due

Balancing Privacy and Free Speech

2/16. The E.U. approach
Rdg (37 pp): Campbell v. MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22* (BB)

Private Facts in Private Places
2/18. Rdg (13 pp + online rdg): Roach v. Harper, 105 S.E. 2d 564 (1958)(BB); C v. Holland [2012] NZHC 2155* (BB); Oren Yaniv, "Judge Dismisses Case against Brooklyn Man Who shared nude photos of [ex-] girlfriend on his Twitter Account," New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2014 (online); "Misery Merchants," Economist July 5, 2014 (on revenge porn)(online).
Film: Rear Window

Private Facts in Public Places (upskirt videos etc.)
2/23. US/UK cases
Rdg (15 pp): C'Debaca v. Commonwealth, 1999 WL 1129851 (1999); State v. Frost, 92 Ohio App. 3d 106 (1994); State v. Dennison, 2012 WL 1580610 (6th Dist of Ohio, 2012); R v Bassett [2009] 1 WLR 1032* (all in BB)

2/25. UK and Canadian cases
Rdg (18 pp): R v. Hamilton [2007] EWCA Crim 2062; R v Rudiger [2011] B.C.J. No. 1947* (all in BB)
Recommended: R. v. Rocha [2012] A.J. No. 163 (Canadian case involving up-skirt photo at airport)(BBR--BB under Recommended readings)

3/2, 3/4: No class (Spring Break)

Private Figures in Public Places
3/9. US cases
Rdg (29 pp): McNamara v. Freedom Newspapers, 802 S.W. 2d 901 (1991); U.S. v. Vazquez, 31 F. Supp. 2d 85 (1998); Penwell v. Taft Broadcasting 469 N.E. 2d 1025 (1984); Shulman v. Group W Productions, 18 Cal 4th 200 (1998)* (all in BB)
Groups must meet with instructor this week to present their topic, sources, division of labor, rough outline of presentation.

3/11. Cases in Canada and E.U.
Rdg (45 pp): Aubry v. Editions Vice-Versa [1998] S.C.J. No. 30*; Peck v. U.K. [2003] 36 EHRR 41 (all in BB)
Recommended: Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, [2010] 1 WLR 123, online (note that the opening opinion of Lord Justice Laws is a dissent), on appeal from [2008] EWHC 1105, online
For those interested: Hoskings v. Runting [2004] NZCA 34, online (summary with link to full judgment)

Privacy of Public Figures
3/16. U.S. vs E.U.
Rdg (58 pp): Meetze v. Associated Press, 95 S.E. 2d 606 (1956)(BB); Sidis v. F-R Publishing Corp., 113 F.2d 806 (2d Cir. 1940)*(BB); Adrian Quinn, "John Leslie: The Naming and Shaming of an Innocent Man"(BB); Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008] EWHC 1777 (BB)
Recommended: Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland [2004] Case No. 53678/00, online (summary with link to full judgment); Theakston v. MGN Limited [2002] EWHC 137 (QB), online (summary with link to full judgment)

3/18. More European cases
Rdg (38 pp): Rio Ferdinand v. MGN Ltd [2011] EWHC 2454*; Murray v. Big Pictures [2008] EWCA Civ 446 (all in BB)
Recommended: Jacob Rowbottom, "To Punish, Inform, and Criticize: The Goals of Naming and Shaming" (in Petley, ed., 2013)(BBR); Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [2012] ECHR 228, online; and A v. B plc [2002] EWCA Civ 3377, online.
For those interested: cases involving soccer star Ryan Giggs: CTB v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1232 (QB), online (summary with link to full judgment); and Giggs v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 431 (QB), online (summary with link to full judgment)
Quiz 2 (covering all material from 1/26 up to and including 3/18)

The Right to be Forgotten

3/23. Publicizing crimes in the U.S.
Rdg (26 pp): Briscoe v. Reader's Digest, 4 Cal 3d 529 (1971)(BB); Gates v Discovery Communications, 101 P 3d 552 (2005)(BB); Parnigoni v. St. Columba's Nursery School, 681 F.Supp.2d 1 (2010)*(BB)

3/25. Publicizing crimes in the E.U.
Rdg (66 pp): R(L) v. Commissioner of Police of Metropolis [2009] UKSC 3*; M.M. v. the United Kingdom [2013] ECHR Case 24029/07; Re NJ [2011] NIQB 122; James Jacobs and Elena Larrauri, "Are Criminal Convictions a Public Matter? The USA and Spain," Punishment and Society 14(1):3-28 (2012)(all in BB)
Recommended: R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2004] EWHC 2229, online.

3/30. Publicizing notorious crimes in Europe
Rdg (40 pp): Venables v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 All ER 908, and [2010] HQ004737; In re S [2003] EWCA Civ 963*; Siry and Schmitz, "A Right to be Forgotten," European Journal of Law and Technology 3(1)(2012)(on the Sedlmayr murder case in Germany)(all in BB)

4/1. Embarrassing google search engine results
Cases in the U.S., U.K., Germany, Australia
Rdg (36 pp + online rdg): John Caniglia, "Ohio Lawsuit over Online Mug Shots Reaches Settlement," The Plain Dealer, Jan. 7, 2014, online; Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v. Designtechnica Corp. [2009] EWHC 1765; and [2010] EWHC 2411; Trkulja v. Google Inc. [2012] VSC 533*(Australia); Case VI ZR 269/12 (May 14, 2013), reported in "Liability of Search Engine Operator for Autocomplete Suggestions that Infringe rights of Privacy," Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practices 8(10):797-802 (2013)(all in BB)
Groups must schedule practice presentation with instructor

4/6. Embarrassing google search engine results (2)
The European Court of Justice decision
Rdg (27 pp + online rdg): Google Spain SL v. Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD) [2014] Case C-131/12 (BB); "Times Articles Removed from Google Results in Europe," NYT 10/4/14, online

Liability of websites and social media companies for publishing embarrassing information: Comparative perspective

4/8. CDA Immunity in the U.S.
Rdg (29 pp + online rdg): CDA (as presented by EFF advocacy group), online; Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services, 1995 WL 323710 (1995); Barnes v. Yahoo!, 570 F. 3d 1096 (2009); Pilchesky v. Gatelli, 12 A.3d 430 (2011); Hare v. Richie, e.al., 2012 WL 3773116 (2012)* (all in BB); Kelly Broderick, "My Picture was Stolen and Turned into a Fat-Shaming Anti-Feminist Meme on Facebook," www.xojane.com, August 21, 2013, online; Yasmin Anwar, "UC Berkeley Psychologists Tackle Spats over Disliked Facebook Posts," UC Berkeley News Center, January 21, 2014, online.

4/13. E.U.
Rdg (51 pp): The Law Society v. Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 (QB); Payam Tamiz v. Google, Inc. [2013] EWCA Civ 68; Delfi AS v. Estonia [2013] ECHR 941 (all in BB)
Recommended: Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd [1999] EWHC QB 244, online
Quiz 3 (covering material from 3/23 up to and including 4/13)

Group Presentations
4/15. Group Presentations I

4/20. Group Presentations II
Paper 2 Due.

Web Resources:

• Center for Democracy and Technology
• EPIC Online Guide to Privacy Resources
• Privacy forum: online journal on privacy issues
• Daniel Solove, The Future of Reputation (2007), online
  

Additional Readings on the ethics of privacy (for students counting this class towards an ethics requirement in their concentration):
Fried, "Privacy" at jstor
Benn, 'Privacy, Freedom, and Respect for Persons'(BBR)
Tunick, Balancing Privacy and Free Speech, pp. 129-156 (Note: pp. 145-53 are already assigned), available as ebook through FAU libraries.

Recommended Films: Fruitvale Station; The Conversation; Borat (in connection with a group presentation)

Additional notes:
Policy on Accommodations: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), students who require reasonable accommodations due to a disability to properly execute coursework must register with the Office for Students with Disabilities (OSD) -- SR 110 (561-799-8010) – and follow all OSD procedures.
Consult FAU's catalog for policy on incompletes. Late work is subject to a grade reduction.

Academic Integrity Policy: Students at Florida Atlantic University are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards. Academic dishonesty is considered a serious breach of these ethical standards, because it interferes with the university mission to provide a high quality education in which no student enjoys an unfair advantage over any other. Academic dishonesty is also destructive of the university community, which is grounded in a system of mutual trust and places high value on personal integrity and individual responsibility. Harsh penalties are associated with academic dishonesty. For more information, see University Regulation 4.001 and http://www.fau.edu/divdept/honcol/students/honorcode.html

Classroom Etiquette Policy: In order to enhance and maintain a productive atmosphere for education, personal communication devices, such as cellular telephones and pagers, are to be disabled in class sessions.