William James Sidis's Privacy And Freedom

Much has been said of William James Sidis’ efforts to live a life of solitude – or at the very least, a private, anonymous, or reserved one as defined by Alan Westin’s thoughtful account in his 1967 article, Privacy and Freedom (Solove and Schwartz 43). Sidis himself noted “The only way to live the perfect life is to live it in seclusion” (Ibid 3). The decision by C.J. Clark of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit controverted Sidis’ plan to remain in seclusion, and has not been entirely overcome in the many years since. Below I will discuss whether there would have been any way for Sidis (or any other public figure) to retreat to obscurity and whether a celebrity is always subject to a “where is he now” report. Sidis made sincere

FR Pub. Corporation 807). Judge Clark further acknowledged that, “the work possesses great reader interest, for it is both amusing and instructive; but it may be fairly described as a ruthless exposure of a once public character” (Ibid 807-808). Nevertheless, Judge Clark noted that “none of the cited rulings goes so far as to prevent a newspaper or magazine from publishing the truth about a person, however intimate, revealing, or harmful the truth may be” (Ibid 808). The decision cited Warren and Brandeis’s famous words indicating the right and need for privacy in the modern world, within certain limits – particularly regarding public officers. Still, Clark noted, “‘even public figures were not to be stripped bare.’…the matters which concern the private life, habits, acts, and relations of an individual…have no legitimate connection with his fitness for a public office” (Ibid 809) Clark even conceded that “Sidis today is neither politician, public administrator, nor statesman. Even if he were, some of the personal details revealed were of the sort that Warren and Brandeis believed ‘all men alike are entitled to keep from popular curiosity’” (Ibid). Despite Clark’s clear acknowledgement of Sidis’ privacy rights, and despite his dependency on Warren and Brandeis’ words, his decision

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) changed the nature of libel suits by establishing that public figures must prove “‘actual malice’” to recover on a liability claim (Ibid 368) (Epstein and Walker 509). Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) applied this standard to all public figures. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), Justice Powell held that private individuals were afforded more protection, noting that private citizens have less access to media channels and thus less ability to rebut defamatory articles published about them (Duhart 374). However, public figures, he contends, are much like public officials in that they “‘must accept certain necessary consequences of that involvement in public affairs’” (Ibid). Furthermore, decisions that cite Sidis, such as Friedan v. Friedan (1976), continue to ignore the passing of time as a means of abating one’s status as a public figure (Ibid). Friedan had been out of the public eye for “only” sixteen years; Sidis had sought seclusion for nearly thirty. “Thirty years ' retirement from public life should end the general public 's interest in the plaintiff14” yet evidently it does not always do so (Digital Repository at Maurer Law 420). Unfortunately, it is still true that “the passage of time usually has little or no effect on public figure status.” (Duhart