Privacy jurisprudence is marked by a tremendous amount of confusion. Theorists and jurists alike approach almost every aspect of privacy from legitimate perspectives that often bear no apparent relation to those of others engaging in the same putative inquiry. At a fundamental level, these discourses diverge in the nature of privacy as a concept, as well as in the incarnation of privacy in the law. Theoretical and jurisprudential discourse on the tort of public disclosure of private facts also diverges, to the point where U.S. Supreme Court disclosure tort opinions bear a mystifying relation to elements of the tort itself. The author surveys and categorizes various theoretical approaches to the concept of privacy and notes disparate views on legal interpretations of the concept of privacy. In addition, the author reviews the U.S. Supreme Court's near devastating treatment of disclosure tort, highlighting the court's refusal to allow privacy protection for almost any private fact. The final part of the article defines what remains of the private domain and examines ways in which courts can protect private facts within a "zone of fair intimate disclosure" consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's privacy jurisprudence. 243 footnotes