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."
Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:5, Informative)
First the Google Cache of the Miss Vermont Story [216.239.37.100]
Katy's site [katyjohnson.com] which ironically has a Free Speech reference.
Re:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:5, Funny)
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:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:3, Funny)
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:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, I'll go with the dumb blonde, thanks.
Re:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:5, Funny)
Tucker Max is not happy with you.
Re:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Re:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:3, Funny)
I mean, the 'Miss Vermont' story, as entertaining as it is, is certainly self-involved, but that Katy link just made me embarrassed to have ever had ANYTHING to do with information technology, period. What a waste of pixels... What a waste of B A N D W I D T H...
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.
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.
Re:Google's Cache to this story .. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Frivolous shit (Score:3, Funny)
If only... (Score:5, 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.
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.
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: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:If only... (Score:3, Funny)
Also a
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.
Re:Check out the self-admitted bullshit: (Score:5, Funny)
Zing! (Score:5, Funny)
"Besides," Adelman added, "Didn't she say she'd leave the country if Bush got elected? Well, we're waiting."
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: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?
Neal Stephenson was wrong (Score:5, Funny)
New Slashdot Poll (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New Slashdot Poll (Score:4, Funny)
Re:New Slashdot Poll (Score:5, Funny)
You know something about CowboyNeal you're not telling us?
Streissand has a point (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Streissand has a point (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not saying the guy shouldn't take the pictures. But he didn't need to use her name. That information wasn't available from public records, and it certainly isn't significant with regards to his work. Unless he's concerned her voice will lead to erosion of the cliff.
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: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: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:Streissand has a point (Score:5, Informative)
From: James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, 28 Nov. - 4 Dec. 1787 [uchicago.edu]
"A bill of rights annexed to a constitution is an enumeration of the powers reserved. If we attempt an enumeration, every thing that is not enumerated is presumed to be given[to the government]. The consequence is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of the government, and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete."
Re:Streissand has a point (Score:5, Informative)
Amendment IX (The forgotten amendment)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Remember that the second, more than the first, protects the rest. 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.
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
Re:Streissand has a point (Score:5, Informative)
The Supreme Court in that case, per Chief Justice Burger, held that warrantless aerial observation of fenced-in backyard within curtilage of home was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
"In an age where private and commercial flight in the public airways is routine, it is unreasonable for respondent to expect that his marijuana plants were constitutionally protected from being observed with the naked eye from an altitude of 1,000 feet. The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye."
Barbra's house underlies the Federal Airway (V299) between Ventura and LAX. It is basically located on an aircraft-freeway in a high-traffic area. It would be hard to imagine any place with a lower expectation of privacy from air traffic.
Kenneth Adelman (Defendant)
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:3, Interesting)
What d
Re:Streisand has a point (Score:5, Informative)
<Linda Richman>
"I'm verklempt. Twok amongst yourselves. The topic is: she needs to get over it, and get over herself."
</Linda Richman>
You know, no big whoop.
Re:Streissand has a point (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
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."
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: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.
Also from Tucker Max... (Score:3, Flamebait)
What's she worried about? (Score:3, Funny)
That of course begs the question, how badly do insurance companies bilk you for building a house on top of a cliff on the ocean? Since I'm landlocked in the middle of Alberta, Canada, I can't say that I know too much about that.
heat/kitchen (Score:5, Insightful)
-Restil
Thank you, Ken Adelman (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Unreal .... (Score:3, Funny)
To Barbara Streisand: Blow me. The guy really doesn't give a rat's ass about "just your house", it's a photographic survey. If you don't like it might I suggest you get your sorry butt down to Home Depot and buying a few acres worth of tarps and covering up that mansion (or collection of McMansions as the case may be). This is America. If it's in plain view from a public place then you are SOL.
To Miss Vermont: Blow me. Seriously, you sound like a party animal. Maybe next time you'll think twice about getting nasty with just any guy. I think you need your dates to sign NDAs or you need to stop being such a _________ (fill in the blank). This lawsuit will most likely sink any goodwill you expected to get from your "title". I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors (and don't put the eggs on the bottom of the bag).
Again, this is the US. The first amendment bigger than you low life, money grubbing trolls. Remember, it gives you the right to act like such jerks.
Re:Unreal .... (Score:3, Funny)
Careful what you wish for. She probably will blow you.
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]:
Oh for crying out LOUD. (Score:4, Funny)
environmental and scientific research projects interested in the health of the coastline and coastal erosion.
It isn't about you, dear heart, it's about science. You were old news years ago, though you enjoyed a brief revival with South Park. Get over yourself.
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!
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.
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
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?
error in article (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, it just doesn't make sense for someone to be able to compete twice. Did it not occur to anyone at the NY Times or other papers to check this? I have seen the same error in several places.
Re:error in article (Score:4, Informative)
So, I went and looked it up. Turns out she won Miss Vermont in the Miss America pageant in 1999 (The one you linked to [missvermont.org].) But, she also won Miss Vermont in the Miss USA pageant in 2001. (Their very slow site is here [missvermontusa.com] but there's no past winners link, you can see their description of her on this [216.239.39.100] google cached page, apparently she was a judge last year.)
I'm going to go do something more interesting like watching paint dry now.
Since when does the Times check out its stories? (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you forgotten Jayson Blair already?
Re:error in article (Score:5, Funny)
Hello? Have you learned nothing? That kind of information is illegal to give out!
"Miss Vermont" didn't think this one through... (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"Miss Vermont" didn't think this one through... (Score:4, Insightful)
Max
Re:"Miss Vermont" didn't think this one through... (Score:4, Funny)
Now you get a restraining order forcing me to take down the site because it's all complete BS. I made everything up.
Ahhh there's where you're wrong...I wouldn't bother with the restraining order, I'd simply hunt you down! It's simple, it's direct, it's effective!
Restraining orders are for wimps.
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.
Re:Tucker Max galore (Score:5, Insightful)
The humor is definitely Beavis & Butthead quality, IMHO.
What if you could see inside her house? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What if you could see inside her house? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
"King of the Hill" (Score:5, Funny)
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.)
Katy Johnson mirror (Score:3, Informative)
It will be interesting to see how long this case survives now that Mr. Max has legal representation.
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. "
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.
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:Here's the story! Enjoy! (direct link) (Score:5, Informative)
it's also possible to direct link [nytimes.com] as a google partner. thus, avoiding pasting the entire article into an overly long comment.
Re:oh no!! (Score:5, Informative)
By the way, here's the direct link to the high-res mansion shot: huge image [californiacoastline.org]
Re:you cant have your cake and eat it too (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:you cant have your cake and eat it too (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:you cant have your cake and eat it too (Score:4, Informative)
First, I will say that I WAS a lawyer. I graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1998. I hated being a lawyer. I started my own company and make internet RPGs for a living. I think I made a good choice.
Second, a statement is not defamatory if it is true. For the MENSA people out there, defamation includes both slander and libel.
Thirdly, the statement does not even have to be literally true in all respects. It only has to be substantially true. See: Restatement of Torts, 2nd, Section 581 A, Comment f.
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 Calif
Re:PLEASE STOP USING NYTIMES (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:PLEASE STOP USING NYTIMES (Score:5, Informative)
Re:PLEASE STOP USING NYTIMES (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Libel (Score:5, Funny)
and this, my firends, is why you must always secretly videotape sexual encounters with hot chicks.
Re:Libel (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Best quote in the Streisand story (Score:3)
Yes, it may seem like it goes against freedom of speech, but there are also privacy concerns. Is it freedom of speech if a corperation violates your privacy and sells your personal information (say, medical records, financial records, or data on your recreational habits)
Re:laws against harassment == "threat to 1st Amend (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So the best thing that one can do... (Score:4, Funny)
How apropos.
Re:retaliation (Score:4, Funny)