Privacy is fine only when citizens may also publicly acknowledge wider social concerns.

Evidence

Protecting what is “close to home” is ¢ne in itself; the problem arises if citizens can never publicly acknowledge that they take anything else seriously, or acknowledge that close and far are inseparable. — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”, 159

Categorization

• DEFINE: This crisply defines the boundary condition of the book’s central concept — privatism is acceptable so long as it isn’t a compulsory denial of the wider world.
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”: The work of avoiding…, 159
• XREF: connects to: Openness advocacy assumes privileges that make self-disclosure safe only for some — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity,…, 620; Conflict between freedoms is overcome only through mutual reciprocal recognition. — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 317; Privacy matters beyond secrecy because surveillance of legal acts chills free expression — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity,…, 619

Related

• Openness advocacy assumes privileges that make self-disclosure safe only for some (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Conflict between freedoms is overcome only through mutual reciprocal recognition. #corroborates (0.73) — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 317
• Openness advocacy assumes privileges that make self-disclosure safe only for some #expands (0.72) — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update, 620
• Privacy matters beyond secrecy because surveillance of legal acts chills free expression #exemplifies (0.72) — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update, 619