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."
If only... (Score:5, Interesting)
you cant have your cake and eat it too (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If only... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure which is scarier, the fact that he's not allowed to post truthful stories (even ones that took place in front of hundreds of witnesses, as he claims some did) or that:
Now IANAL, but I thought that one of the basic principles of jurisprudence is that you have to at least try to listen to both sides of the story before making a decision. Deciding the case not only without a hearing, but before the defendant has even been notified of the action seems as though it thoroughly violates the idea of due process.
Libel (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If only... (Score:4, Interesting)
This part actually seems reasonable to me. The fact that the judge prohibited someone from writing about the truth seems absolutely insane.
Wait a sec... (Score:5, Interesting)
Privacy Concerns
We are aware that we have photographed a number of homes in the process of documenting the California Coast. The California Coast is a unique and beautiful place, and those people who have chosen to live on it have made the coast a part of their lives, and their lives a part of the coast. It should come as no surprise that the public at large would be attracted to view this beautiful place some call home. We have little sympathy for those who would feel that in order to enjoy the beauty of the coast that they must deny others access to it.
All of the photographs on this site have been taken from a public place and in compliance with applicable Federal and State laws. (emphasis mine)
Please be sure to review some of the highest resolution photographs before forming your own opinion. You cannot see much detail, for example, identify individuals or see into a house. Also, as discussed in the next section, this information is available elsewhere.
A very good book about how technology will affect the privacy of all of us is The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? by David Brin.
Re:PLEASE STOP USING NYTIMES (Score:3, Interesting)
Tough noogies, Babs! (Score:1, Interesting)
What's really ironic is that Babs is a big supporter of environmental causes and this project is helping map and track erosion and other environmental problems.
It's not like you can tell WHERE in California her house is or that it is identified AS her house. No street addresses are shown. Sure, someone really determined can find out, but then a quick trip online or to the DMV can get her address anyways.
Sounds like a classic case of the overly paranoid to me.
Stand up and face the music, Tits. (Score:5, Interesting)
The major problem I have with the whole Miss Vermont thing is that the tales told about her are ADMITTEDLY accurate (RT[F]A). Now, she is holding herself up as a model of abstinence, temperance, steadfastness... and a whole other load of crap (see the saccharin-sweet-make-you-puke intro to her website, which I'm not gonna link to here 'cause she's on a litigious rampage, apparently *cough* www.katyjohnson.com *cough*)
The problem isn't that she's being hypocritical -- everyone has the right to change their mind about the values they hold and what they want to represent. But the truth is, SHE DID THE STUFF that Max is writing about.
Don't we all have dirty little secrets in our past (like, say, those 2 consecutive French Quarter Mardi Gras back in the 90s... I've still got sacks and sacks of beads -- my daughter *loves* playing with them!)??
If you can't face up to your past, DON'T pursue a role as a public figure (like Miss Pure-and-Proper America -- DUH). Eventually, it's gonna come back and bite you in the ass. Either have the ovaries to stand up and address the "mistakes" you've made, or STFU and retire to a quiet life of obscurity.
If you're really lucky, you can buy a house in Barbra Streisand's neighborhood and be ensured of your privacy!
Re:Streissand has a point (Score:4, Interesting)
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(Emphasis mine)
Even though this amendment was designed to protect your privacy against the invasion of the government, there is still precedent for protection of privacy.
Re:Streissand has a point (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Close your eyes when on an airplane or cruise s (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, exactly right. For example, in the freely available property tax database [traviscad.org] for central Texas, Sandra Bullock's place is listed as "NOT AVAILABLE." Yet the name (and often spouse info) of every other person on her block is listed.
Tucker Max galore (Score:5, Interesting)
Regardless, it's a fine line sometimes between what's libel and what isn't. I'm a huge fan of First Ammendment rights, and even if it comes at the cost of someone's pride, then so be it.
What if you could see inside her house? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Streissand has a point (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Streissand has a point (Score:3, Interesting)
What do you feel about the fundamentalist anti-abortionists who publish the names, addresses, phone numbers, etc of doctors that perform abortions? What about those that continue to do so even after some of these doctors have been attacked or killed?
How would you feel if everytime you bought porn or preparation-H or whenever you eyes strayed to another woman's boobs someone published that info on a website? Is this really free speech, or is it intrusive?
Suppose I see you at a supermarket and catch your credit card # (say I even have a pocket videocamera with zoom lens). And I also see you enter your PIN # at the ATM. Is it free speech to publish this info? Suppose I see what the grooves of your house keys look like, is it free speech to publish this information? What about explicit instructions to produce a working duplicate of your house keys? Suppose I photograph you in Infrared through the walls of your house, and report consistently what rooms your in and what you appear to be doing. Still free speech?
Just curious where you think the line should be drawn, if any.
Re:What if you could see inside her house? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the cops looked through my walls it would violate the 4th amendment, unless they had a valid warrant. No first amendment issue, no right to privacy issue. Solely a 4th amendment search and seizure issue.
Re:Close your eyes when on an airplane or cruise s (Score:1, Interesting)
There might be some question with the resolution & magnification of the camera used. Using technological devices that greatly expand or go beyond ordinary senses has been considered unreasonable. In United States v. Kim, federal agents used a high resolution telescope to observe Kim. In Kyllo v. United States, thermal imaging was used to observe Kyllo. In both cases, these devices were considered to violate the plain view doctrine.
Finally, all of the above has the government as one of the parties involved and all dealt with criminal charges. Civil proceedings may differ greatly.
Interesting Angle for Babs Suit (Score:5, Interesting)
An interesting angle on the Barbara Streisand suit:
The photographer claims to have taken his pictures "from a helicopter flying over the Pacific Ocean." This could present a jurisdictional issue.
SCOTUS precedent holds that the federal government has sole jurisdiction to the airspace over the US, as well as to lands off the coast (United States v. State of Texas, 1950, for the latter decision, which was used to support the former as well; a previous case, US v. California, also deals with offshore rights, and was used to support US v. Texas). If the location from which the picures were taken was outside the jurisdiction of California, then California would have no claim; in this case, he may have been twice out of their jurisdiction: once offshore, once in the air. Without jurisdiction, the State of California can blow and go all it wants, but can't bother the photographer. 'Course, he'll probably have to fight in Federal court to establish that, but it's still an interesting position.
You'd think the First Amendment would take care of such things, but it wouldn't be the first Amendment (no pun intended) to be ignored in California....
(IANAL, but I did help write a textbook [ou.edu] on Aviation Law; US v. Texas is discussed in Chapter 7.)
Re:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:4, Interesting)
Using the google cache (remove the keywords at the end of the above URL to get rid of the highlighting), I think we should keep this information online, to show how we feel about crap court decisions.
I have created a mirror: missvermont.dessent.net [dessent.net], please grab these files and mirror them if you agree. I will be forced to remove the contents if they are slashdotted, so please mirror!
Max can safely ignore the order. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's invalid because it was issued without giving him an opportunity to contest. From [findlaw.com]
CARROLL v. COMMISIONERS OFPRINCESS ANNE, 393 U.S. 175 (1968)
"The 10-day order here must be set aside because of a basic infirmity in the procedure by which it was obtained. It was issued ex parte, without notice to petitioners and without any effort, however informal, to invite or permit their participation in the proceedings. There is a place in our jurisprudence for ex parte issuance, without notice, of temporary restraining orders of short duration; but there is no place within the area of basic freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment for such orders where no showing is made that it is impossible to serve or to notify the opposing parties and to give them an opportunity to participate."...
and citing A Quantity of Books v. Kansas, [393 U.S. 175, 182] Ê 378 U.S. 205 (1964)." [findlaw.com]
" In the latter case, this Court disapproved a seizure of books under a Kansas statute on the basis of ex parte scrutiny by a judge. The Court held that the statute was unconstitutional. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, speaking for a plurality of the Court, condemned the statute for "not first affording [the seller of the books] an adversary hearing." Id., at 211. "
Re:Streissand has a point (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that the second, more than the first, protects the rest.
What tripe. So Americans are substantially freer than all of the other countries of the world without such an amendment? Brits still have the courage and the right to criticize their PM for being a liar about WMD but Americans can hardly be bothered. The Dutch and Canadians can smoke pot without risking years in prison. Why is it that the G8 country with the most guns has the least freedom?
Oh, but we threw the second out a long time ago. That's why we have the USAPATRIOT Act and TIA. Because no one in Washington thinks they're at all accountable anymore.
I can't believe that even you believe this. Americans cannot look up from their television screens long enough to notice that their president is an empire-building liar but if they all had guns they'd be waving them in the street and he'd be afraid of them. "We'd better not pass that law. The terrorist-frightened couch potatoes are going to rampage in the street." Look, Bush's approval rating is about 60%. Not only will Americans NOT drive him out of office with weapons, they may not even bother to drive him out with ballot boxes when they get their chance. America has the USA Patriot act because Americans are willing to trade freedom for the illusion of safety.
It is sickening to me when leftists claim that every problem in the world is caused by capitalism or poverty but really this takes the cake. TIA caused by gun control!
Re:So the best thing that one can do... (Score:3, Interesting)
A topic that was on the radio the other night was about how to spot liars. One of the tips that someone is lying is that they often give too detailed accounts of events. I couldn't help but think about that while reading his version of events. "I forget what I made.." and then rattles off a bunch of specifics. (Does he record everything down in a journal after the hours of fucking her? Who would remember exact quotes after that?) The guy makes himself sound like the Mike Hammer of the S FL restaurant business. I agree that her site is horrible, but his reads like a piece of trashy fiction. I'm guessing the judge in this case thought so too.
The most dangerous sentiment, and it's growing... (Score:4, Interesting)
To the extent that anything in American political life can be sacred, the First Amendment is. It is the greatest contribution of the US to human politics. It saddens me to witness the increasing frequency with which the citizens -- and leaders -- of this country are willing to toss it aside. If the statements are untrue, there are well-established mechanisms for Ms. Johnson to collect damages or have the statements removed. But if they are true then she has no leg to stand upon.
The privacy to which Ms. Johnson is entitled -- celebrity or not -- involves restrictions upon other people investigating her, not upon statements about situations into which she has entered voluntarily. If the story is about, say, a party she attended, I don't see how she can possibly claim that she has a right to suppress it.
But the most disturbing thing is the issuance of an order of prior restraint, something that has long been anathema to American jurisprudence. It might have been a simple temporary restraining order but the reaction of people quoted in the Times article seems to imply that this was not routine. I find it ironic and sad that, in the middle of the Viet Nam war, the Pentagon could not obtain a prior restraint upon the Time to prevent publication of the actually secret Pentagon Papers, but Miss Vermont can pre-emptively gag this guy.
Hypocrisy & Misogyny (Score:2, Interesting)
My dear misogynists:
(A) Slander/Libel isn't protected by 'free speech' unless in the 'public interest':it is perfectly possible to be in favour of 'free speech' and still not support the right to slander/libel other persons.
(B) Do we know whether her opinions on temperance and abstinence were the same prior to the 'Tucker' incident? She could only be called a hypocrite if they were. And after reading that story, can you really blame her for thinking that maybe abstaining from sex and alcohol in the future might be a good idea. At least for her personally. Trying to learn from experience isn't necessarily the same as hypocrisy.
(C) So her drawings are
undisguised rant. (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh-huh. Really. She's clearly evil because her site is in flash and has one of the longest and most boring skip-intro's I've ever seen. And all though there's plenty to nitpick (although I like the 25 and 36 star American flags- I was just thinking that most of those states in the middle are useless anyway), one thing bugs the shit out of me: the cast of characters for her comic strip. And not just the fact that they're all skinny and well endowed (and thus excelent role models for the young girls I assume this is aimed at). I take offense at Bekka's intro
Bekka studies a lot and the kids mock her
She doesn't care; She's going to be a doctor...
Hrm. Let's promote the American cultural tradition of mocknig smart people. That's a great approach to character education. Seriously- when I was in high school I wasn't even cool enough to wear a black trench coat. The last thing I feel like seeing is a washed up beauty queen reinforcing the whole 'pick on the nerd' mentality. I think the US is singularly fucked up in the cultural assumption that smart guys don't get girls* and that you have to be some kind of steroid swilling football watching smooth talking asshole to automatically get women. Why are there never movies where the football player wishes he could get the cheerleader away from the chess team captain?
But I guess beauty pagents, and people like Katy, are direct results of this culture, and thus blindly propogating it.
Sigh. I think I should go to sleep before I get into my theories about the pick-on-the-nerd mentality leading to school shootings.
*or rather that smart people don't get members of their desired group.
Miss Vermont, personality and therapy (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Overprotective parent (mother from what I've read)
2. Easily taken in by an agressive male 'player'
3. Because of the strict rules placed on her, she is eager to rebel and gets carried away with the sex and booze.
4a. Eventually realizes (as most people figure out later in life), that her parents might have had some good points growing up - create a website with their rules to make her parents proud and hide her past experiences.
4b. Feels that she has been taken advantage of and makes a website that can help other girls who might fall into similar situations.
Judging by the way she handles situations in the Max story, she doesn't appear to catch on quickly what's going on (polite 'dumb blond' statement). I would venture to guess it is the same with many of the guys she's dated - unable to know if they are in it for just sex and then dump aside. It seems to me that due to her personality and her position as a beauty queen, etc, that men would generally be in a relationship to take advantage of her.
I can easily understand why somebody who went through such relationship as she did with Max would try and publicize abstinence from sex and alcohol and from letting men take advantage of them. It seems like a defence mechanism to somehow correct her own mistakes.
However I feel she should seek councelling herself and come to more of a balance between her inner desires/emotions and the rules she grew up with. From looking that the two websites, it seems like it is an all-or-nothing approach from her part.
I honestly feel sorry for the woman. She is trying to help women out there - moreover, making somewhat of a career out of it. I think she would be better off to be somewhat honest with the audience of her website. Something like, I've been there, don't do it, instead of trying to hide her past with this lawsuit. Perhaps simply as Max to tone down the site, removing the profanity (i.e. "pull down my pants and eat my member for dinner"). If her website was more upfront about her own experiences, this Max guy might not have written the story to begin with. Although, I feel many of the cartoons on her site are probably somewhat auto-biographical.
Nevertheless, I'm sure some therapy would help her.
Re:Zing! (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. The only problem is that those votes were and are simply the answer to a trivia question; they never became a part of our electoral process. The votes didn't make him president, the courts did. Well, the courts and Catherine Harris- who acted not as Secretary of the State of Florida, but as co-chair of Bush's Florida campaign.
If you agree that the votes, *had* they been a part of our electoral process, would have been in Mr. Bush's favor, then you also agree that he would be still be president today if everyone had just shut the fuck up, stopped whining about 'hanging chads' and 'confusing ballots' and just let the guy with the most votes win. Like Mr. Spock said, 'A difference which makes no difference *is* no difference.' I don't see how it could really be all that complicated. I saw the Florida ballots, and if you 'did not understand the ballot' or 'did not know who [you were] voting for', please stick your head in the oven, turn the gas on, and go to nice, quiet sleep. Also, although I am a Libertarian, I find it vastly amusing that the Democrats couldn't seem to understand the whole voting thing. It just makes me laugh. No, we don't need more choice in education in this country, people. Just let those great public schools keep up the good work. Maybe in 20 years we can have an electorate that votes by making monosyllabic grunts toward pictures of candidates. 'Ungar vote him! He have shiny smile!' Bah. A two party system is a sucker bet anyhow. If you don't fit into one of those two parties, might as well not even register to vote. (Yeah, yeah, activist types. Of course you should try to change whatever, turn around the system blah blah bullshit. I'm registered, I vote, I care, I do what I can, but I don't have any illusions that we'll see a third party president (or female, or gay, or minority, or any combination of the above) until more Americans start coming to their own conclusions, instead of listening to and following blindly what they say. My views may not be popular, but I've come to them through study, thought, and experience. They are not based on feelings. They are not based on half-remembered conversations. They are not based on what I was taught in school. I really don't care if someone agrees with me or not, as long as they know *why* they agree or disagree. I can't talk to people about anything that matters if they say 'uh, i dunno' or 'i just feel that way' when I ask why they believe something. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. This country is built on differing opinions. Just be able to present a coherent rationale, to back up what you say with at least a logical argument.
Also, on a slightly different note, I for one am very glad that it was Mr. Bush, not Gore, who did end up elected. I voted Libertarian, as I usually do (though not always), but I don't think Senor Brown would have handled 9/11 very well, and I'm positive Gore would not have. I don't like Mr. Bush as much as I have liked other Presidents in history, but would you really want Gore trying to get the Middle East to give up internal combustion engines instead of terrorism?
Case law for 4th Admendment searches - Privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
I just happened to be reading the book "The Right to Privacy" (Ellen Alderman, Caroline Kennedy) page 26 concerning a case where a man attempted to prove a search was unreasonable because the search was conducted from an aircraft. (He had marijuana in a large field).
The author's reference notes to the Supreme Court ruling states:
Maybe Babs isn't growing the herb, but the Court ruled unreasonable to protect one's garden from aerial observation.
Shiftlock
Off Topic, but I disagree (Score:1, Interesting)
I agree with this part and little else.
Tucker wants to get laid. BFD. In the end, its just sex, and while I personally don't go for empty sex, its not crime to just want to bang girls.
Its just not.
We build sex up so much as a mythical force that it has a hold on people that doesn't make sense.
Yeah, she likes to get fucked by rich guys. So what? But on the other hand, she's being the typical gold-digging slut that pubically likes to play to some weird christian-right moral majority while getting laid by anything with money and a dick.
I find his site refreshing in that it a real slice of life as it is, not a weird Rockwell-ish view of how some people think it ought to be.
Re:Zing! (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, not on slashdot. not on any board I post on.
I've seen more Bush bashing than I have any other President.
You sure you didn't arrive at that idea from something you heard on tv, or a "half-remembered conversation"? You must be basing this judgement on his record in the Congress. Right? Oh, and he invented the internet too, didn't he? Face it, you are a media-spewing idealogue, just like the rest of us.
Uh, I arrived at the idea from reading his fucking book, you fucking idiot. He said right in there that he wanted to get rid of the internal combustion engine entirely. He also had a lot of other wacky ideas that I most definitely did not support. Also add to that his support of the Kyoto bullshit, and that sealed the deal for me.
He reads like a loony, to me. I wouldn't use him as my example for brain, were I you. I am not a media-spewing anything. If you've read my other posts you know I'm critical of the media, as well as most of our government and also most of the rest of the world. If you haven't, shut the fuck up about what I do or don't do. I haven't read any of your other posts, and thus I don't comment on what you do or don't spew. However, your reactionary reply to me does force me to label you jackass. Plus, I never brought up the al gore + internet thing. Thanks for attributing a fallacy to me that I didn't commit. You're a stand-up guy.
And while I hate Saddam just as much as the next guy, and even supported the war to the dismay of my liberal friends, Bush is a swaggering, shoot first, ask questions later, cowboy, manure licking simpleton in the world arena. His idea of diplomacy is "We're still mad at you Russia, but at least you're not as bad as France". In answer to your question, I would take brain (Gore) over brawn (GW) as foreign policy chief any old day of the week.
Yeah, who's spouting now? Do you know Mr. Bush so personally well as to be able to back up the fucking reactionary sludge you just vomited? I make no claim on what kind of man Mr. Bush is. I only say that his publicly espoused views on terrorism more closely mirror mine, that is, that terrorists and terrorist states should be eliminated, rather than Gore's more pacific approach. Perhaps you consider running away from bullies to be brainy, but I can tell you from experience that they don't leave you alone until you kick the crap out of them. Perhaps Mr. Bush isn't the smartest person on the face of the earth. Of course, anyone's chances of being the smartest person on the planet aren't very large. However, he is President of the United States. Who are you, again? What have you done that's so wonderful? If you equate diplomacy with placating tyrants like saddam and human rights abusers like china, iran, libya, syria, most of africa, n. korea, et al then you, sir, are a spineless fuck. In case you forgot, we tried diplomacy for over 10 years. How long should it take? Media darling and Rhodes Scholar William Clinton sure didn't work any miracles with Iraq, and I thought he was supposed to be all diplomatic and shit. Al Gore's record in Congress is not really of interest to me, as I am not one of his constituents. The votes I've cared about, he's voted opposite me. Well, except for a 1984 vote where he voted for legislation that would have defined life as beginning at conception. However, once he got seriously into politics, he changed him mind on that issue and began to vote the party line. Al Gore is not a bad person, he is just not the person I want as my President. That's why I didn't vote for him. Mr. Bush wasn't my first choice, either, which is why I didn't vote for him either. My candidate did not win, however, and so since my first choice had no chance, I have to be satisfied with second best, and I feel he's done no worse than most presidents and better than a few. So now that we know you can call people names, perhaps we can move on to discuss why you felt you had to 'prove' that I don't truly have reaso