From: B
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 10:14 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Rozeff – Privacy Rights of Girl in Shower Hello there Walter Moderate Block, I just read a blog post at LRC titled “Privacy Rights of Girl in Shower” by Michael S. Rozeff. I tried to send him an email, but the “send email” link wouldn’t work. His mistake is misconstruing the elements of the implicit contract that are born of the cultural norms you referenced in which the contract is made. I take a proper Rothbardian view of contracts, that they only pertain to title transfer, not promises. It seems like Rozeff shared this view. His mistake is thinking that the implied contract between the boy and girl does not effect a (partial) title transfer. Their contract prevents the boy from using any property, like cameras, in such an unexpected and unwanted way. Please correct me if I’m wrong. B
From: N
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:15 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Girl in the shower
Would the onus not be on the girl to ensure, by asking her host, that she is not being filmed? If the host were to then deny that he will film her, in order to convince her to shower, then that would be a form of fraud and punishable, right? A libertarian world would demand greater personal responsibility, and this would seem to be a good example of that. I would hope a person who could not be trusted to not film his guests in the bathroom would be ostracized by society, but I can’t see him being in violation of any libertarian law merely for filming his own shower(barring an explicit agreement that he will not do so). N
From: J
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: The girl in the shower
Professor Block, Let us first dispense with the idea that contracts are always explicit as to all of the rights and obligations of the counterparts—they rarely are. Contracts generally resort to terms or phrases such as “reasonable,” “good faith,” “normal course,” “commercial honor,” and so forth, to deal with the fact that explication of every possible right or obligation under every possible future condition or circumstance is impossible. So, yes, tacit agreement, custom, culture, moral values, implication, intent, and other undefined phenomena may and do have contractual standing. No libertarian should object to this. I am happy to have a simple law “Though shall not murder” and do not require, and cannot reasonably expect, an *a priori* elaboration of every possible act of homicide, with attending circumstances, that may constitute murder. In fact, I’d rather keep it simple, and let judges decide whether a given act of homicide is lawful. In our society or “culture,” the girl would reasonably expect her host to respect her privacy. She would be justified in believing that his offer was well-intentioned, made in good faith, and circumscribed the range of his conduct to exclude the possibility that she would be photographed, naked or clothed, as his guest without her permission. Otherwise she would not have accepted the offer of his hospitality. Further, she presumably took explicit steps on her own to convey her expectation of privacy, such as closing or even locking the bathroom door, and undressing behind that closed door. She would have a property interest in this verbal contract—an offer and acceptance—predicated wholly and reasonably on social custom and norms of behavior. Had she known or even suspected she was to be videotaped, she would have declined the invitation. By violating those norms, her host took from her what was not his to take, aggressing against her in so doing. J
Dear All: I’m closing off comments on that girl in the shower. I’ve had more commentary on this one than on any other thread, but, I now think we’re reaching diminishing returns on it.
Dear B: I agree with you. I think that, in effect, there is a “trade” between the boy and the girl, a sort of barter. Each gets the company of the other. In order for there to be a valid contract of this sort, there has to be “a meeting of the minds” and I think all parties to this debate stipulate, at least arguendo, that the girl does not agree to have a nude picture of her taken. So, yes, there is at least a quasi illicit title transfer when he takes that photograph.
Dear N: I can’t agree that “… the onus (would) be on the girl to ensure, by asking her host, that she is not being filmed.” Maybe, perhaps, in some cultures, but certainly not in ours. Here, the common expectation of 99.9999% of the population is that she has to give explicit permission for this to occur. Nor do I think that “a libertarian world would demand greater personal responsibility.” No, just the ordinary amount. We only demand a greater adherence to the NAP
Dear J: I agree enthusiastically with your point. It is not difficult, but rather impossible, to foresee all such eventualities.
9:16 pm on May 11, 2017
