Barbra Streisand, Miss Vermont, And Your Website 744
An anonymous reader writes "A Silicon Valley millionaire, Ken Adelman, is being sued by Barbra Streisand for $50 million. Adelman photographed Streisand's sea-side Malibu mansion using a 6 megapixel Nikon digital camera from a helicopter flying over the Pacific Ocean. The photograph, along with over 12,000 other photographs, is part of an aerial photographic survey of the California coastline. This photographic database is intended for use by environmental and scientific research projects interested in the health of the coastline and coastal erosion. Streisand's suit complains that the photograph is of extraordinary clarity and violates her right to privacy, as it shows details of the property that one would not ordinarily be able to see from the road or the beach. California has an 'anti-paparazzi' statute on the books."
Check out the self-admitted bullshit: (Score:5, Insightful)
Followed somewhat later by
Okay SO. Is the story accurate, or does she emphatically deny it?
As the article notes:
This is exactly the basis to throw this case out of court. The judge, however, was obviously under some kind of pressure to issue the order, or is completely unfamiliar with the first amendment, or simply does not believe in it. If the story is inaccurate then it is clearly libel. If the story is not inaccurate, then on what grounds do you decide that it is not protected speech? The woman is a public figure, which means you pretty much waive your right to privacy anyway, but even if she didn't, if she does something in front of someone, they have the right to report it so long as they do so accurately.
Streissand has a point (Score:3, Insightful)
Streisand (Score:1, Insightful)
PS - I hate rich people.
No Rocks For YOU Ms. Streisand! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Sorry, but we have no photographic record of how your coastline used to look, so we, and the good taxpayers, will just assume it's always had that room hanging over the ocean."
BAD precedent. (Score:2, Insightful)
However, I give this about six weeks before it's overturned.
Re:you cant have your cake and eat it too (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:sewer pipe? (Score:2, Insightful)
Close your eyes when on an airplane or cruise ship (Score:5, Insightful)
So under "right to privacy", we are never allowed to include someone's home in a photograph? I guess that makes this product [nvidia.com] completely illegal.
Or is it only rich and famous Hollywood stars whose homes are covered by "privacy" acts. After all, who would want to look at a picture of my shaby old 200K home.
Streisand only seems like she is for the "little people" when it benefits her---either by raising publicity for her or by making her feel better by "fighting the EVIL REPUBLICANS". Strange that it is *HER* that is fighting this environmentalist's work and not some land developer or corporate polluter. But you can be sure if she wins, every land developer and corporate polluter will be using her case as a precedent. After all, don't they and their workers deserve privacy as well?
Brian Ellenberger
Re:Streissand has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
Does she? And does it trump the guy's Constitutional right to free speech?
Where in the Constitution is your right to privacy codified, and what are the precise words? Contrast this with precise and clear
unequivocal grant of the right to speech, and
then explain how this ruling will stand up to judicial review.
Re:Barbara's house is now my wallpaper (Score:3, Insightful)
This is some incredibly beautiful photography. It's really rather sad that Ms. Streisand can't see the larger picture here. I can't imagine that all of the denizens of San Francisco proper will be suing the company as well. After all, if nothing else, this site and the photos will inspire people to perhaps take up lanscape photography, maybe to visit the California coast, or even to buy property in the area. No matter what happens, sites like these (and projects like these) can be a real boon to the economy of the region.
heat/kitchen (Score:5, Insightful)
-Restil
So the best thing that one can do... (Score:2, Insightful)
We should also comment on the "Free Speech" banner on Katy Johnson's page, and I personally feel she is a huge hypocrite.
Re:Best quote in the Streisand story (Score:1, Insightful)
It's amazing the number of people who will run to the government to play bully for them when they're angry, but who feel that government power is evil when it is in the hands of someone they don't like. They need to learn that there are powers that no government ever should have regardless of the motives for using them. When you are willing to wield that power or have it weilded on your behalf, decrying its use at other times is more than a little hypocritical.
Clinton? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sooooo... you can't write about a former girlfriend, yet any and all dirt on Bill Clinton (a President, no less) including cigars, cum stains and other sordid crud is suitable for public consumption?
Re:Streissand has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
>Does she? And does it trump the guy's Constitutional right to free speech?
>Where in the Constitution is your right to privacy codified, and what are the precise words? Contrast this with precise and clear unequivocal grant of the right to speech, and then explain how this ruling will stand up to judicial review.
I didn't write this- my wife wrote it in an earlier post [slashdot.org] two weeks ago. But it looks like it will fit here.
First Amendment concerns have previously been found insufficient to justify terroristic threats. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Nuremberg Files did not enjoy First Amendment protections in listing the names and addresses of doctors on the Internet. A court in April ruled that burning crosses does not enjoy First Amendment protections either. And of course, First Amendment concerns may sometimes conflict with property rights (as in the case of spam). There is no right that is absolute and that trumps all others. You have to consider the situation.
I don't know what's going on with Streisand, since the story doesn't seem to mention her at all. But it seems to me that you're insisting she has no right to privacy because you don't like her. But if she has no right to privacy, neither do you.
Re:Streissand has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
Also notice that the text of the law deals with warrants. The idea is that police officers can compel a search of your house. This is something normal people can't do. I can't force my way in and search your place, that's breaking and entering. Well, neither can the police unless they get a warrant, which they require probable cause to get. So this law gives the police special rights that normal citizens don't have, but places limits on those rights.
Also I see nothing in the constitution, and nothing I remember from case law, that would support the fact that you can't photograph the outside of someone's house. It is done ALL the time for lots of reasons. I also don't see or know of anything that gaurentees you a right to secrecy, which is really what Streistand wants. Her privacy wasnt' viloated, he didn't enter her house, photgraph the inside or anything like that. All he did was reveal the generally secret fact that it belonged to her. I fail to see how this is doing anything wrong or how secrecy is in any way legally protected in this case.
Re:laws against harassment == "threat to 1st Amend (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even as a TRO, Lewis's order sounds very (probably unconstitutionally) broad. The only possible justification for such an order that I can see is a theory of invasion of privacy, but I doubt that would apply to the bulk of the events described in Google's cache of the article--if true, most of them were witnessed by other people, and many of them by lots of other people. Not much privacy there. However, the invasion of privacy theory can be used to stop the publication of true statements (suppose you were to publish my complete credit history--it'd be true, so I couldn't sue for libel, but it'd certainly be an invasion of privacy, and I could get an injunction against it), which is why I think it's the only possible justification for this order.
The rationale, I expect, goes something like this: If the statements are true and non-private, and we stop publication for a couple of weeks while we (the court) verify that, Max isn't harmed too much. However, if they aren't, and we don't, Johnson's reputation could be permanently damaged.
In a nutshell, Lewis's order is troubling, but it's not yet time to panic. I'll be interested to see how the case progresses, though. And FWIW, IAAL, but this isn't legal advice, you aren't my clients, etc.
Re:What if you could see inside her house? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when does the Times check out its stories? (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you forgotten Jayson Blair already?
Re:Stand up and face the music, Tits. (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you really believe that? Should every person who wants to run for any kind of public position be forced to lead a quiet and sanctimonious life?
Personally I don't want the David Souters of the world to be the only ones holding important positions. Real people who have lived real lives should also be able to. Otherwise the US is going to become a really boring (and repressed) country.
I think over time the guidelines on privacy may have to change, first amendment or not. People are entitled to a certain level of privacy, "celebrity" status or not.
Adrian
Re:Streissand has a point (Score:3, Insightful)
Further the right to privacy is far more nebulous than the right to free speech. And even the right to free speech has limits, such as the government's compelling interest in protecting secrets.
Re:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, she sure had her vacant and stupid moments in that story, and sure, Tucker Max has that good ol' livin'-a-james-bond-flick appeal, but you know, none of that makes it all right to treat someone like that in real life. I wonder if this guy practices law the way he hooks up with women.
Re:Unreal .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Land deeds are public information, even in Malibu, California. The LA County Office of the Assessor has these documents for public perusal upon the asking.
From their website [lacounty.info]:
Re:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:If only... (Score:4, Insightful)
He's a jerk, and she's a flake. She's obviously in desperate need of a personality transplant, and had the misfortune of having her first intense relationship with a complete asshole. I've met the type, the very pretty girl that has always been made so aware of it she doesn't know who she is beyond her looks. At this rate, she's not going to find out.
--Dave
Re:Zing! (Score:4, Insightful)
You know that he meant "If Bush becomes president..."
Just take it for what it was; a stupid celebrity, has flair for the dramatic, blowing off a lot of hot air. He never gave that thought any consideration, he was just saying words. They live in a different universe than the rest of us.
--Joey
Re:Streissand has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy shit! Not only do people not have the right to view my lawn and the exterior of my home, but they also don't have the right to figure out who owns it? I better call my lawyer, but I've got an entire neighborhood to sue. I've also got to go down to the local sign shop and print up a nice, big sign saying, "Thank you for driving by. My lawyer will be contacting you later today."
I'm definitely in favor of privacy rights, but those rights should not extend to things that you can see on my block with the naked eye. It also shouldn't be applied selectively to celebrities. If someone can take a snapshot of my home and say who lives there, then they should be able to do the same thing for Barbara Streisand.
Re:Tucker Max galore (Score:5, Insightful)
The humor is definitely Beavis & Butthead quality, IMHO.
Re:you cant have your cake and eat it too (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd mod that funny, if I weren't afraid it might come true.
Re:Stand up and face the music, Tits. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you've got so much money and want to shut someone up, hire a professional. I am so sick of thugs hiding behind the law. =p
I for one want normal people with all their flaws running the country. I don't care about their dark secrets, I want to know what they can do TODAY.
You might. Allegations of corruption, murder, extortion, embezzlement don't concern you? How would you recommend people choose a baby-sitter? I happen to believe, probably not uniquely, that the best indicator of future behavior is past performance. Having the law bar me from discovering what that is hardly helps me decide "what they can do TODAY", no?
Ken Adelman also has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
The airspace over all our houses is a public place, controlled by the FAA. There have been numerous challenges to this in this country, but generally it's been held that only the Federal Gov't has the jurisdiction to control the airspace. Taking aerial photos is therefore similar to taking photos from the street, in that both are public places.
Adelman has taken these photos of the entire California coastline, even getting permission from the military to photograph the parts controlled by them. He has had several complaints from rich people who object to pix of their houses on the web, but he makes no exception for any of them. He has not singled out Streisand or anyone else, and he is not selling pix of her house for personal profit. The proceeds of sales go, as I understand it, to fund environmental preservation. He is legally allowed to fly in the airspace he was occupying at the time. Finally, hi-res satellite photos of the Streisand compound can no doubt be purchased from a for-profit organization, and presumably these have been available for years with no complaint from Ms. Streisand. So I think her case is pretty weak.
Interestingly, I had no idea that Streisand owned a home on the coast, and even though I knew about the California Coastline project, never would have had much interest in looking at her home. But the news of this lawsuit changed that; I simply had to go look. Adelman made it easy by putting a link to it right on the home page. I'm sure that many people who didn't know about the project at all, or at least didn't care particularly, are now fully informed about it. If privacy is what Streisand is after, she has chosen a funny way to get it. Even if a judge orders the removal of the picture from the website, copies of it will no doubt remain available all over the web. Even if the project is shut down as a result of this suit, and all the pix disappear from the web, the picture of her house will be famous, and will persist as long as there is a web and interest in Streisand.
Re:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, I'll go with the dumb blonde, thanks.
Far More Important Life Lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also the stuff of life you're completely missing out on sitting at home playing Counter-Strike and Evercrack.
Seriously, Tucker is a ridiculous caricature of the antithesis of geekdom (which is not to see he's not a really bright guy). But use his extremism to find the golden mean: Especially you younger Slashdotters, go out and make some MEMORIES. Do something STUPID. Take some (respectful) CHANCES with women.
Tangents:
The shocking of hilarity of Tucker's story is that it has the ring of truth...Even Katy accuses him of "invading privacy" by conveying "accurate details" of her life.
On the other hand, the shocking hilarity of Katy's site is its utter vapidity that resonates with Tucker's assessment. Her cartoons...wow...I mean, I could draw better cartoons and I'm so bad at drawing I'd be ashamed to show them to my own mother. And the humor(?!). Wow.
Check out these tortured puns:
Make it your philosophy not to be Gossipy! GOSSIP -> G(R)OSS(L)IP. [katyjohnson.com] Get it? Gross Lip! Ha. Ha?
It's unfair that most comics are drawn by men. It's time for DISS*"WOMAN"ATION to end! [katyjohnson.com] Please kill me.
The groaners keep coming. It's amazing. I mean staggering.
Check the speeding tickets... (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't feed this guy's page counter (Score:5, Insightful)
So her intelligence is not Ph.D-in-number-theory Slashdot elite... that's really no excuse for her class-deficient Ex-BF to write a kiss-and-tell website about their entire relationship. Frankly, I'd say it's pretty weak. I understand wanting to do it; everyone's lived in bimbo limbo at some time in their life. Everyone who's ever had a bad breakup, whether they saw it coming or not, has wanted to do the same thing; it's actually doing it that's over the line. Be an adult and walk away, thankful that the other person is out of your space.
There's something to be said for being the bigger man about these things. Let it go... such people tend to get what's coming to them anyway; all it takes is time.
this is just wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
poor girl tho. according to his story she serviced him quite well & only made a fool of him a bit. she is stupid but doesn't deserve the anger that comes seeping out in his writing. unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if she tried to commit suicide. this is upsetting her deeply no doubt. but deal w/ it I guess, she made her bed, now LIE in it.
Re:"Miss Vermont" didn't think this one through... (Score:4, Insightful)
Max
Re:Tucker Max galore (Score:3, Insightful)
Celebrated by mysogynistic geek losers who hate and fear women because they can't get a date with anything other than a RealDoll. Katy Johnson may have been too stupid to avoid a fuckwit like Tucker Max, but most women can spot these sorts of losers pretty quickly, and avoid them like the plague.
Why else do you think there are so many frustrated nerds out there? If most women were as lacking in the ability to judge character as Ms. Johnson, we'd be overrun with little nerdlets by now.
And as for Beavis and Butthead, I show I loved: these two were deliberately written as over-the-top losers of the worst sort. No one could mistake them for anything but losers. That's one of the things that made them so funny. Tucker Max, unfortunately, isn't immediately identifiable as a real-life Beavis, at least to some people.
Max
Re:Unreal .... (Score:3, Insightful)
In a word: Bullshit.
Huge, heaping, stinking mounds of badly decaying bullshit. Bullshit so deep that hipwaders are completely inadequate.
The "famous" are entitled to NOTHING more than the rest of us. Period.
We have this wonderful thing in the United States called the Constitution. It has been amended 27 times. The 14th of those amendments contains a clause that is commonly referred to as the "equal protection clause." This clause states that all the people in the United States have "equal protection of the laws." It does NOT say "equal protection of the law, and a little extra protection to those who are famous."
A logical conclusion of your otherwise reasonable point is that it should be OK to publish somebody's credit card details
Credit card details are protected by 3 things: Laws that make it illegal to open someone else's mail, laws that make fraud illegal, and the caution practiced by credit card holders.
or their health records
health records are protected by doctor/patient privilege
or the government's defence plans
These are protected by the National Security Act and other laws.
Real estate records, on the other hand, are protected by none of these. It's public information, and anyone who cares to stroll into the local courthouse can find the full name and address of every property owner in the county, along with the location, description, appraisal value, and a convenient diagram showing the shape and size of each piece of property they own. If someone goes through the trouble of taking a picture of my house from the street and finding the deed to my house in the county courthouse, they have every right to publish that information. I may not like it if someone did that, but I would like it less if property records weren't public. Why should Barbara Streisand have greater protection under the law than I? Does being famous somehow give one extra rights? How famous does one need to be to get those extra rights? Or does one only need to be rich? How rich? How much does it take to buy some of those extra rights?
Psychopathic Stalker ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Checkout the Dr Hare's DSM scale after reading the article, I have him exhibiting 16 of 20 key indicators of a psychopath.
- Glibness/ superficial charm
- Grandiose sense of self-worth
- Proneness to boredom
- Pathological lying
- Conning/ manipulative
- Lack of remorse
- Shallow affect
- Lack of empathy
- Parasitic lifestyle
- Poor behavioral controls
- Promiscuous behavior
- Early behavior problems
- Lack of realistic long-term plans
- Impulsivity
- Irresponsibility
- Failure to accept responsibility for actions
- Many marital relations
- Juvenile delinquency
- Poor risk for conditional release
- Criminal versatility
Great God Almighty! (Score:4, Insightful)
Tucker is a creep. The man is an IQ-test for women living in a modern, pluralistic society where women are free to choose sexual partners. In any place like the United States or Western Europe where women can choose one, many, or no sexual partners, women learn to avoid the Tuckers of the world, usually in high school, or they fail to and it isn't anyone's business.
The fact that Johnson hadn't learned it and didn't avoid Tucker is telling with respect to her... a cautionary tale about classic prudery and its abstinence-as-ignorance-as-virtue attitude. In the real world, Johnson got off lucky in that She could have gotten more than just a Tucker: she could have gotten a Tucker with a disease.
The judge in the case is a horror who in a better world would wake up covered in a sweat of realization and retire from the bench after reversing herself
Yes, Tucker's portrayal of Johnson is painful to Johnson. Tucker is an egotistical turd, a man an earlier age would have called a cad, but the judge's decision sacrifices Tucker's right to free speech -- and by precedent, anyone's who comes before a court in a similar case -- in order to protect Johnson's right to hypocrisy; essentially, her right to foist on young women a standard of behavior that she herself obviously coudln't live up to and that was just as obviously harmful to her.
Johnson couldn't keep her legs closed when a Tucker rolled around, and she is selling the same set of attitudes that made her situation possible to impressionable young women; basically setting them up with the same sexual ignorance and social naivete that lead to her experience. Tucker's rebuttal, as nasty as it might be, would have provided a counterbalance to Johnson's B.S. and denial, working exactly as our free-speech provision is supposed to, and the judge shot that down. Honestly, that judge shouldn't be a judge anymore.
I can't stand the Tuckers of the world but I can only hope he appeals and wins.
Re:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:4, Insightful)
In defense of Ms. Johnson... (Score:1, Insightful)
Seriously, why is everyone so appalled by Ms. Vermont? I read the story, and I came away completely disgusted by Mr. "Tucker Max" and feeling rather sorry for Ms. Johnson. The way I read it, the guy abused an emotionally crippled woman (with a great sense of smug satisfaction, I might add) and then told everyone he could about it. As far as I can tell, her greatest crime against him was sharing her truly outstanding body with him. (Last I looked, getting falling down drunk at a wedding reception is not a crime)
If this guy ever graduates from short-order cook to lawyer, I think we will be seeing more of him on late night TV commercials explaining how YOU, too, can sue for fun and profit.
Freedom of speech doesn't give someone the freedom to act like a complete asshole without suffering repercussions. He should thank his lucky stars she didn't put that marksmenship training to better use...
Re:Far More Important Life Lesson (Score:3, Insightful)
I found myself wondering what it says about the American education system. This is a woman who apparently made Dean's List, got into law school and passed the Florida State Bar.
Fortunately for the people of Florida, her only work experience in this area was as a summer receptionist -- presumably for Lionel Hutz.
This man is a git! (Score:2, Insightful)
NewsFlash for Tucker Max (Score:3, Insightful)
"Of course, there is always the small flickering of hope that a hot, intelligent, emotionally stable girl will see my site, recognize my value, email me, we'll fall in love, get married, raise a gaggle of children, and live happily ever after. "
Sorry to say it, chum, but any girl who fulfills requirement #2 will run in the opposite direction at top speed when they see your site.