Slashdot Mirror
Barbra Streisand, Miss Vermont, And Your Website
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."
Here you go! Useful links to this story...
First the Google Cache of the Miss Vermont Story
Katy's site which ironically has a Free Speech reference.
its... Mecha Streisand!!
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Is that a sewer pipe sticking out of the cliff?
You want to be taken seriously like real journalists? Then you will be subject to the same strictures. You must respect libel and slander laws and represent yourself honestly at all times or you will be prosecuted.
Your ex-girlfriends' websites?
:-)
I can just imagine the sort of girls you've been dating
The Miss Vermont Story
This is the complete and unabridged story of my relationship with Katy Johnson, known to my friends and her fans as Miss Vermont. I normally don't like writing about the specific details of relationships or hook-ups for many reasons, but this is an exception. After putting up the giant hypocrisy that is her webpage, she has to be ready for what I write.
I must prepare you, in advance, for what you are about to read...it is as ridiculous and surreal as anything I have have ever written, and possibly anything you have ever read. This relationship was outlandish even by Tucker Max standards. You may not believe some of what is written here. To that, I can only tell you that I have several witnesses to most of the events here, and the wedding was, well, a wedding, so there were hundreds of people there.
Furthermore, this is a long story, because I didn't want to leave out any of the details, lest the story seem forced or less amazing that it really was.
And to Katy: Even though you haven't responded to the email I sent you, I know you check this site every few weeks. You are welcome to email me with corrections or additions to the story. If I got something wrong or left something out, please let me know and I'll be happy to change it. In fact, I'll go farther. If you want to write your own version of our relationship, I swear to my god, that I will post it, COMPLETELY UNABRIDGED, right next to mine. This is your opportunity to rebut anything I say here.
_____________________
The summer after law school graduation, I moved to Boca Raton, Florida and took a job managing my father's restaurants. I wasn't really expecting to meet a girl I would like, as the general intellectual level of South Florida is somewhere above "functionally retarded." After I had been in Boca about two months, I hadn't really had any sort of relationship other than emotionally uninvolved sex with morally suspicious girls, and I eventually resigned myself to vacant sex with the vapid idiots that infest South Florida.
One day I was at my gym, The Athletic Club of Boca Raton. It is a massive airplane hanger of a building; a gym, health club, spa, lounge and restaurant rolled into one. Basically, it's the type of place where guttural grunts and flexing underneath tight shiny shirts passes for foreplay. Welcome to Florida. For several years it's been the "in" place to workout in Boca, one of the primest meat markets in a town full of butcher shops. I usually tried to avoid peak hours and the throngs of scantily clad gold-digging whores positioning themselves for fifth husbands. Don't mistake me--staring at dozens of immense fake breasts spilling out of sports bras is fun for a while, but it gets old quick, especially when those breasts are attached to faces that tell the story vacant personalities do not. These women have circled the drain a few times, and no manner of plastic surgery or trips to the spa can hide that despair that years of whorish behavior and emotional prostitution leaves in the eyes.
I was in the free weight section of the gym, and one girl kept catching my eye, more for what she wasn't showing rather than what she was. She had a navy blue hat on, pulled tight over her face, a loose fitting white cotton T-shirt, and green basketball shorts. Not the standard Boca female gym outfit. Staring at her between sets, I realized that she was very attractive. By trying to hide that attractiveness, she became even better looking. The logo on her shorts said, "Vermont Law," which gave me the perfect in. My law degree would finally get some good use.
I approached her as she paused between sets, and asked if she had attended law school at Vermont. She told me she didn't, that she went to undergrad there, but that she was attending Stetson for law school. I told her I just graduated from law school at Duke, and the look on her face told me all I needed to know. It was about 7:30, she was obviously into me, so I decided throw my hat in the ring:
"So,
it's also possible to direct link as a google partner. thus, avoiding pasting the entire article into an overly long comment.
I can study it for future stalking purposes.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Besides," Adelman added, "Didn't she say she'd leave the country if Bush got elected? Well, we're waiting."
There are five things we will be good at. He forgot about suing each other...
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Déja-Fark
I don't like the woman at all, as I'm sure most /. readers don't, but that doesn't matter. She does have a right to privacy. There was no reason for her name to be mentioned on that website. One point in the lawsuit specifically states that the house is not listed in public records under her name. Like most of her property its registered under a corporate identity that can't be easily connected to her to protect her privacy. I can't help but wonder what would have happened if he hadn't disclosed the name of the owner, which is not required for the purposes of his site.
But seriously, what do these two stories have to do with each other, other than that they probably both belong in the "Your Rights Online" section?
Now all the nerds can take revenge on the girls that once ignored them for being dorks. Thing is, you're still nerds.
What a hypocritical bitch. She is the definition of "limousine liberal" (and I'm a liberal) who does nothing to help people but bitch about what others aren't doing. That house probably cost $20 million and the $50 million she would win in her nonsensical lawsuit would probably go towards gold plating the roof or something equally frivolous. If her and Oprah would die maybe someone who actually gave a fuck about the poor and underpriviledged would earn those dollars.
PS - I hate rich people.
"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."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
However, I give this about six weeks before it's overturned.
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
Pretty sure that the Bush admin just filed a brief supporting the requirement that anti-abortion websites remove any references & personal information to abortion providers
beauty queens are so boring...
not to mention so beholden to anyone who mighta caught a bare-chested pic of them from ages, say, about 12 and up....
their entire currency relies upon a manufactured (most likely) image of purity or born-again purity as the case may be...
In any event, this seems fair to me... After all you can't use a corporate image w/o getting copyright permission (else you're subject to infringement)... So why should it be any different for us...
Though I do wonder what implications, if any, this has for websites like Dr. Norman Matloff's that list proponents and opponents (of L1, H-1 visa programs in this case). Even though that's negative advertising in a sense versus what Tucker is trying to do here -- which is appropriate his ex's image positively (and who can blame him! Everyone knows women score men by the women those men date) -- which I'd describe as "positive advertising."
On second though, being a strict constructionist, perhaps Max outta be able to speak his peace! er.. piece as the case may be...
Those who give up their power willingly deserve none.
Why oh why do so many story submitters encourage us to visit a site which requires some small amount of personal information to gain access to something which is freely available in so many other places????
Google News has a whole list of news stories about this event.
-Adam
Shouldn't the Miss Vermont case be handled under libel law? (This is a question for the lawyers, not an anssertion). As a public figure, she might have a tough time winning a libel suit.
This post is dedicated to all of those
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.
So under "right to privacy", we are never allowed to include someone's home in a photograph? I guess that makes this product 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
Tardblog!!!
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
...of an NDA I had to sign for a previous (unnamed!) employer--I could not make fun of the owner nor of his family. I know! I couldn't beleive it either. When I mentioned it after I started, everyone was unusually joke/kidding free, so I got the hint and let it lie. I think someone was picked on too much in highschool!
No need to worry..once the site gets /.ed to death, the picture (and the whole server) will have gone bye-bye :P
I got a +5, Troll
In a couple of years, that cliff will erode to the point where her house will be in the ocean. Then she can build something else totally different, maybe a bit more inshore.
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.
This is pretty much a slam dunk for free speach. His comments, by her own admission, are accurate, so she can't claim libel. She's a public figure, so she can't whine about privacy. If she wanted privacy in her life, the best way to accomplish that was to not strut around in a swimming suit for a national public audience. OF COURSE old boyfriends are going to come back from the dead when you reach celebrity status. If you're going to be a celebrity, make sure there isn't anything in your past that's going to embarrass you or others, or learn to live with the fact that somewhere out there some nutball is going to get his two minutes of fame by telling a story that nobody really cares about anyway. Well, the tabloids will care, but they're just as likely to make something up anyway, probably something worse.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I will print this picture out and add it to my "places to avoid if you don't want to run into Barbra Streisand" file.
You Slashdotted Babs' nude sunbathing.... YOU BASTARDS!
A Million and one" other articles about the Miss Vermont Story.
NYTimes No-Reg linkof the Miss Vermont Story.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
This is cleary explained on the site:
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.
is to post what we feel about Mr. Max and Ms. Johnson on our own weblogs, right? expressing our opinions on the veracity of the information that Tucker Max posted?
We should also comment on the "Free Speech" banner on Katy Johnson's page, and I personally feel she is a huge hypocrite.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It's perfectly legal to take pictures from public areas, which is where the helicopter is when it's mapping the coastline.
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.
This ruling has obvious implications for the First Amendment if allowed to stand.
Tell it like it is bro. I'm proud to live in a country where people have the constitutional right to publish if I like to be on top or bottom when I have sex. Or somebody can publish how often do I go to bathroom when I get to be really famous.
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.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Ms. Johnson maintained that Mr. Max had invaded her privacy by publishing accurate information about her and had used her name and picture for commercial purposes. (my emphasis)
So she admits everything he said was true.
So basically this ruling is saying that he can't talk about Ms. Johnson eventhough he is doing it through his own experiences. So he lost the right to part of his own life.
-Eyston
Environmentalists (preachers, politicians) who know just what rules everyone should live by ... oh, except for them.
And folks wonder where the stereotype of celebrities as self-absorbed narcissists comes from. Well, no, perhaps they don't, but regardless--the photograph, taken from a big frickin' distance at that, was part of
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.
The coolest voice ever.
So how is this any different than proscribing harassment?
Can't Miss VT make the case that his comments constitute harassment? What about the arg that his comments constitute a threat to her "privacy" -- and though there is no guarantee of privacy in the Constitution, the same has been manufactured most notably in the Roe v. Wade case a few of you might have heard of.
PS: these two so want to tumble back together in bed.. let 'em have each other and be done w/it!
Those who give up their power willingly deserve none.
Way back in my journalism class in high school, we learned that if a libel suit is brought against you, and the person bringing the suit is a "public figure" (and this women certainly is), that they had to prove that there was malice. That is, you intended some harm to come to the person. (For non-public figures, you only have to show that the information is false.)
Has something changed? Are we rewriting the libel laws for the internet?
I wish I had a daughter so I could forbid her from seing this.
Oops. I mean Toots.
:-)
....Bethanie....
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!
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?
Trolling is a art,
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.
You have a choice: tax and spend Democrats, or borrow and spend Republicans. Choose wisely.
god what a bitch!
Prior to today, I didn't know her name, never mind her reputation, as I had never even heard of her, and had never run across Max's site. Now everyone who reads Slashdot knows that she's a drunken slut! Way to protect that reputation! Perhaps "vapid" doesn't even begin to describe it...
You're using her as bait, Master!
I thought it was the goatcx site at first. Please warn people about these things. Nasty ...
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Yes, exactly right. For example, in the freely available property tax database 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.
Our backyard was bigger than her land. She paid millions for a couple hundred feet. And now everyone knows. No wonder she's pissed. Besides, the beach looks crummy, full of rocks and such. Not the picturesque smooth sand I would expect from a person of her supposed caliber.
I saw that, too and thought, what the heck is that green gunk running down the cliff? Looks like her overrun of fertilizer is helping algae and bacteria grow. Small wonder she'd want that covered up!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Who cares if Tucker Max was honest or not? Posting that crap on the web is in my book the definition of having no class. It may be legal to post stuff like that but it sure aint right.
Couldn't he just replace his website with the phrase "Miss Vermont is a bitch"... she can't sue him because there've been so many Miss Vermonts over the years, how could she prove he meant her and not the previous Miss Vermont?
nosue Miss Vermont is a whore. nosue
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.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
Just to play devil's advocate here, what would you guys think of this if you could clearly see inside her house. Ya know, with one of those 600x zoom, infra-red heat-sensing 10,000 megapixel digital cameras that are just around the corner. Then would she have a case worthy of trumping the first amendment right to put said picture on the internet?
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Umm.. so looking at the photo of her house... Is she affraid someone will count how many chimmneys she has? Really, its a georgous shot, but of all things she should be happy that someone is taking nice pictures of the coast line, its not as if you can make out any real details besides that her pool doesnt looks as clean as the ocean below it? Oy.. maybe she should sue the USGS for taking high resolution satalite photos and Micro$oft for allowing meer mortals to view them.
...makes me bleed from the anus.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
A[ctually|llegedly] _he_ didn't make the identifying entry. The way the gallery of images is set up, anyone can make comments and/or add captions to the photos. And that's what happened to Ms. Streisand's estate photo, and other celebrities' homes that were snapped as well.
<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.
Uhh her website says that she was Miss Vermont USA 2001 and Miss Vermont 1999 so it doesn't look like they were too far off. . .
Well, Ms. Vermont's website might well have something interesting to say, pity she chose to obfuscate it in Flash...
it's only slander if it's spoken. If it's written, it's libel.
... if the goatsex guy wanted his dirty laundry pulled from the web.
It wouldn't be slashdot without the google partner links for early karma-whoring anyway.
Vermont is a cow anyhow.
i live in vermont.. miss vermont is really a cow. but, shhhhhh.... ;)
She's holding herself out as a public figure (and she is one by being miss vermont, anyway). As the lawyer said, the public has an interest in knowing if she lives up to the image she is portraying of herself. She's milking her public figure status for money/attention. It's a two-way street. If you are a public figure portraying yourself as a model of morality, the public always has an interest in knowing if you're full of bullshit and really an immoral piece of shit. For examle, Bill Bennett. He constantly holds himself out as a czar of morality, and the Right treats him as such. He's come out against porn, gambling, abortion, homosexuals, etc. So, when it turns out he has a huge gambling problem and has lost over a million bucks in casinos, the public has an interest in knowing that. If it were you or me (poor schlub nobody knows about) then making a website saying we have gambling problems may constitute harassment. Maybe. It would actually be more of a "false-light invasion of privacy" cause of action, and not all states have that.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Though it could be argued that a pedophile is less dangerous. A pedophile generally only endangers the kids he's in contact with. That woman and that judge endanger us all.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I've (almost) never heard of anything so blatently stupid. This will be thrown out on appeal.
you have to admit that yentl movie was pretty touching. it made we want to cry.
He's come out against porn, gambling, abortion, homosexuals, etc.
Wrongo! But for overreaching, you'd have been in
Those who give up their power willingly deserve none.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Prehaps you forget that the Fla Supreme court was going to settle it. (Talk about corrupt)and you forget that the vote was counted and recounted (about 8 times I think) and G.W. always won . So get over it he was Elected (those who do not rember history are doomed to repeat it)
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
Bennett is a director of Empower America, together with former vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp, former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota and former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. . . . Empower America opposes the proliferation of casino gambling, and its co-chair, Kemp, recently lambasted lawmakers who "pollute our society with a slot machine on every corner." ~ Gaming Foe Characterized as High Roller, Journal Review
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
The Internet is caveat emptor writ large.
And thus it ought remain.
My idea for a useful website: a national publicly-accessible and free database that allows the user to query on name any suit filed by any individual. As such prospective employers can ascertain prior to hiring Billy whether or not Billy has a sue-happy history.
Costs covered via advertising (esp. PI firms etc.). It'd be a boon.
Those who give up their power willingly deserve none.
She totally reminds me of the "Luanne" character.... if you know what I mean.
I suggest you read Slashdot
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Anybody else notice the tube coming out of Barbra Streisand's property that is eeking some pretty nasty looking stuff? My guess is that her septic system goes straight to the ocean. Good job Barbara.
That yesterday, I couldn't have given two honks about who Miss Vermont was, what she looked like, or who she engaged in - um - recreational activities with. Now, I've passed that google cache link around to about ten people - who will undoubtedly pass it on to more - nevermind the legions of sex-deprived Slashdot fiends who will immortalize her forever.
A search of "Miss Vermont" on Google brings up a sacchrine-sweet PR story; I chuckle, as the image of someone going down Mr. Tucker Max with the aroma of - ha - burning fish in the background.
Oh, my. Sometimes, boys and girls - there really IS justice. Hahaha.
..don't panic
Gentleman don't reveal intimate details of their encounters with women. Period. It only shows him to be a low, contemptible individual.
Have you forgotten Jayson Blair already?
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
He's come out against ... gambling ...
Just looking for a citation on this please... I'll save you the googling, there isn't one.
Those who give up their power willingly deserve none.
is the funniest website ever. I stumbled onto it a few months back, and he has been posting about this "issue" of a woman "who shall go unnamed".
:)
I find it humorous that the NYT was the one who let me in on Tucker's little secret instead of Tucker...
Funny sh|t Especially the Absinthe story...
"Never upset a goalie, getting hit with a blocker is an unpleasent experience - facemask or not." -Me
Maybe the judge ruled this way because her last date refused to sign an NDA before going out...
I can see my house, where I used to work, people on the beach, Ocean Avenue in Carmel, Bubba Gumps in Monterey (and all of Cannery Row), Monterey Bay Aquarium, Pebble Beach, etc.
I'm tempted to grab all the hi-res pictures and creating a slide show moving along Del Monte beach all the way to Carmel Beach. You can see the house that Frank Lloyd designed (that Sammy Hagar used to live in) here.
Ok, I'm bookmarking this. You can even see the Monterey Presidio that they shut down slightly before Sep. 11th (security was tightened from an unknown threat?). Interesting, indeed.
Most folk'll never lose a toe, and then again some folk'll...
after all, he went to a boarding school with a yearly tuition of $29,400
If you take the high resolution version of the protograph of her home and subject it to intensive photo enhancement techniques you can clearly see in the third window of the upstairs portion of the middle section of the house what is clearly Barbara Streisand fellating Tucker Max while Circuit Judge Diana Lewis penetrates her in the stink ring with a strap on.
"Fuck, shit, cock, ass, titties, boner, bitch, muff, pussy, cunt, butthole, Barbra Streisand!"
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Heh. Streisand is only worth a few million... not like those Billionares out there. I also bet she pays her taxes and doesn't re-incorporate in Bermuda.
Who knew?!
Tucker Max is a class act asshole, that being said he was in law school and knows whats what.
The relationship between them happened between them, it belongs to both of him, and he is free under the first to share his 'half' as he sees fit. Since what he is saying is true, it is not slander.
The photograph on the other hand is another story. Even though he may have taken it and owns it, since he doesn't appear in it, it's not 'his'. If he has a photo with him and her in it, then he can use it as he sees fit.
I can see him riding this one right to the Supreme Court.
and put a picture of her in it doing it with a goat or something ? then post the link here. then circulate it all over the net.
To me the Barbara Strisand and the
Miss Vermont issue seem completely
different. Ms Strisand (sp) just
happined to be there -a coincidence-
maybe she should move her palace
further inland. The Miss Vermont
thing seems intentional.
The answer to your question is that only the rich and famous Hollywood stars would have their names listed with the house pictures, while nobody gives a hoot about the rest of us common joes.
And, as i said in a different post, she claimed (whether true or not) her objections were specifically because stalkers (and if you were as despised as much as she was you'd have several too) can now find new and better ways onto her property and into her house.
make world, not war
What the fuck is a shaby?
When you are a director of a public interest group that openly takes a stand on a public issue (gambling bad), you do so also, by implication.
The act of being (and remaining) director of a group that is publicly against gambling is what causes Bennett to "speak" out against gambling in this instance.
Am I saying by joining a group you are "saying" you are against everything that group is against? Not necessarily, although there is that presumption. But when you are a director of such a group, then yes, you are on the board and you speak for the group. Thus, when the group says something (gambling bad), the directors do also.
Hey I wish it weren't true... I don't hate the guy, but he's a blatant and express hypocrite and there's just no way around that.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
You should have kept your mouth shut. Then no one would know it was your pad. Nice pad, though. qz
No matter what's being said today about Miss Johnson, I can guarantee one thing. We are rapidly approaching the worst day in her life. NYTimes, Fark, and now Slashdot have picked this stuff up. Google has the story cached and its probably getting more hits now then it ever got before this lawsuit.
I originally read the story on Fark and quite frankly I happen to believe it. While I don't believe in the judge and she trying to deny 1st amendment rights (BAD MONKEY! NNNOOO!), I can't help but show a little emphathy (not symphathy) to the situation. Given that background she probably doesn't have a great deal of self confidence or high self-esteem.
That said, we all have a relationship or two we wish we could cram back in the closet but hey that's what growing up is. Part of maturity is beginning to recognize bad relationships and deal with them accordingly. I know a lot of 23 year olds that are just as immature as she is portrayed in the article (part of the reason I tend to believe it). I know I wouldn't want my sexual exploits published on the web, but you know part of growing up and maturity is not picking those individuals who would publish this stuff on the web in the first place.
All said, I am glad I am not dating anymore and am committed to a wonderful woman who will be my bride soon. Hopefully this episode in her life will teach Miss Johnson a valuable but very costly lesson about the kind of individuals she should be looking to date and have an intimate relationship. In addition, part of maturity and growing up is dealing with the consequences of past relationships. Finally, any woman who would let a man smack her on the butt and say get along were about to have ManTalk and not turn around and turn his balls into puree needs to take a long hard look at the reflection in the mirror.
Or more importantly, the "plain view doctrine" (which is a far more definate legal principle than "right to privacy") includes visibility from the air, as well as from the ground. See California v. Ciraolo & Dow Chemical Co. v. United States. In the first, the police used a plane to observe marijuana crops at a distance of approximately 1000ft with the naked eye. In the second, the E.P.A hired a commercial photographer to fly over Dow's plant and take photographs using a "standard precision aerial mapping camera". Both cases were decided in favor of the government.
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.
So I guess it's illegal to take photos of houses just in case evil Al Quaeda home-invaders might want to break in and rob me, or worse.
So I guess it's illegal for me to photograph my own house because my neighbors' houses might appear in the photos.
Right. Lady, if you're worried about that sort of thing, get an alarm. That's what they're for. Or if you're that scared, ask the cops to drive by every so often, or hire a private security company to do the same thing.
i am a soviet space shuttle
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 on Aviation Law; US v. Texas is discussed in Chapter 7.)
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
It would be nifty if enough people with weblogs linked to this story. It could get to the point where this story was prominently ranked in a search for "Miss Vermont".
1. Bennett is strictly speaking *not* a hypocrite on this issue--he expressly never spoke out against gambling; not to mention that none of what was recently rehashed (thanks to, I believe, Josh Marshall) was *news*--it had already been out, at least since '96.
2. Was Bennett personally engaged in some self delusion by being so strictly NOT a hypocrite in the sense of never speaking out against gambling though speaking out against many other moral ills? Perhaps.
3. What I think is funniest about this is that folks are surprised (shocked!) to learn that someone is not all that person is cracked up to be--perhaps same people are a bit relieved. I frankly think anybody stupid enough to buy Miss VT's claptrap should be sued.
I'm being literal girl and I know it's bugging the shit out of you, but here's the def for hypocrite: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess
Bennett never professed any beliefs against gambling. EmpowerAmerica (especially Bill's buddy Kemp) spoke against expanding legal gambling (not against gambling itself) and said that an "addiction" to gambling was problematic--would you describe an activity that you engaged in 5 times a year something to which you were addicted? What about an activity that you intend (and likely will) quit cold turkey? Doesn't sound like an "addiction" to me. It's not like he was on the 5pm shuttle to Vegas every Saturday.
Just as you don't hate Bennett, I have no particular love for him; but I do think it's *strictly* incorrect to call him a hypocrite on this issue since he so fastidiously avoided speaking on it yet so voluminously spoke on so many others -- where his non-mention of gambling could have been construed as implicit support for moderate engagement in it.
Those who give up their power willingly deserve none.
Why didn't the bitch teake him up on that offer instead of taking him to court. It's bullshit like this that is choking our legal system.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
What the fuck is a shaby?
A shaby or the real slim shaby?
Alternatively, perhaps this was Old Weird Harold talk.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
Google Cache
Old Weird Harold
Or Mushmouth, even. I'm an idiot.
GF.
That is one of the most sickeningly wholesome sites I've seen on the web....
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This basically means (and is usually interpreted so by the Supremes) that if a rigtht is not specifically denied, then it is presumed to exist. That's where the presumption of a constitutional right to privacy comes from. So much for there being no right to privacy. Moving on, then...let's deal with Ms's. Streisand and Vermont---and they are two different issues.
I very strongly support all of the Bill of Rights, including (most emphatically) freedom of speech. We forget though that every right must have corresponding responsibilities. For example, I have an absolute right to go outside and swing my fist as I please . . . as long as it doesn't violate your even greater right not to have your face dented by it.
Noted and agreed that public figures are presumed to have voluntarily given up a certain measure of privacy (fame and privacy are more or less exclusive conditions), none of this even applies to the Miss Vermont case. This Max dude demonstrates bad taste, even if his story is true in all details. If it can be shown he is publishing lies, Miss Katy has legal recourse. If not, tough. She got called out for being a hypocrit, as she should be. I'm reminded of Jane Seymour, that paragon of virtue, and her old nudie flicks.
Barbara Streisand, on the other hand, was in a real sense violated. She seems to have taken deliberate measures to keep her residence from being known, and her private life private. There is no expectation that this kind of information is generally made available about public figures. Quite the opposite---many, many of them use a number of cutouts, including their agents, studio mail addresses, etc. to keep their home life private.
The publisher of the web site with the aerial photos of Ms. S's property has the right to publish information found in open records. He also has the responsibility of considering the consequences of his exercise of that right on others. It serves no more purpose to identify that site as Barbara Streisand's as it would to identify the aerial photo of my house as being mine. Except that I'm not famous, and no bragging rights would accrue. Woo woo, dood. Do the righteous thing and pull the identifying info.
Should Ms. S win her suit? Unless her ownership of the property is a matter of clear public record, hell yes. Otherwise, no. Her right to privacy does trump the right to free speech, except to the extent that her status as a public figure makes her fair game---which is out in public places, not at home. The right to be left in peace trumps any right someone else has to disturb your peace, period and end of discussion.
Got it? Probably not. Run along now and play. It's a matter of common sense. The Founders had a lot of it; a lot of us seem to lack it.
Have a nice war,
Mal the Elder
Either, you're trying to be funny somehow, or you're a dumbass. The word is spelled "gnaw".
Jayson Blair wrote it.
This is the third or fourth time I have seen that here.
"Mr. Max had invaded her privacy by publishing accurate information about her"
That is not a smoking gun people. They are referring to accurate information contained in the story, not saying that the story is accurate.
For example, if Tucker had refrained from using her real name, and instead called her Miss Vermount, on account of her winning two previous titles (without mentioning years). He would have been fine, I see no reason for him to be so specific, unless he was intending to cause her grief. Which I think is pretty poor form.
He exagerates a lot. But that is irrelevant.
"So she admits everything he said was true."
Not true, she admits that her name, and _some_ other details are true.
"So basically this ruling is saying that he can't talk about Ms. Johnson eventhough he is doing it through his own experiences. So he lost the right to part of his own life."
Not true, he lost the "right" to profit from explicit and potentially embarrising details of his and someone elses life.
That's not something that I particularly think you have a right to. Particularly in this case where he is intentionally using someone elses name to sell it.
Free speech is intended to allow for political freedom, not to allow you to get away with trashing someone else in a public forum with little avenue for rebuttal. I find it quite disturbing that many people think that the first ammendment should allow them to say whatever they want whenever they want.
Certain situations should not be allowed:
eg: yelling "fire" in theatre. (Public endangerment)
OR
Commercial exploitation of untruths about a person in print (libel)
OR
Commercial exploitation of untruths about a person in spoken form (slander)
OR
Commercial exploitation of truths about a person whereby that information was gained with the expectation of confidentiality. (privacy)
So there are two issues here:
Libel:
Tucker will have to provide evidence to the court that the story he has presented is true in order to prove he didn't commit libel.
(If he lied, then this is much easy to argue)
Privacy:
And he will have to defend that the use of her name to (help) sell his book will not cause her irreversible harm. And that using personifiable details was a necessary part of the purpose of the book. (Which I think it was not).
(This is harder to argue, plus the cat is pretty much out of the bag if she wins on this.)
Essentially this part boils down to whether she had an expectation to privacy as determined by the law. I know I certainly wouldn't expect my private sexual exploits to be printed in a book, by the other party. If on the other hand the other party was a well known sex novelist, etc. And _I_ knew that, but continued the relationship, then you could expect to be written about.
But even then I would expect my identity to be anonymous or at least heavily obscured unless I have given permission.
"get an alarm".. great idea moron. I'm sure she hasn't thought of that one. The difference between you and a female celebrity is that you're not stalked by psychotics. Sure.. somebody could break into your house or gun you down as you leave your house tomorrow, but are you going to go to the trouble to alter your daily routine because you fear somebody is watching? If you are at risk for that sort of thing, which I am sure many famous people are.. you have to take extra measures to minimize the risk, like trying not to draw attention to your house and keep it as hidden as possible.
. . . blinking "FREE SPEECH" on the website Miss Whore Vermont's attorneys say is illegal to link to. My damn irony meter is pegged.
~~~
If you are work at an ISP (I do) in a position of authority, I suggest that you blackhole her site in your DNS. Reoolution of her site's name, should go to either a server that has a page explaining that she's a cunt and needs to die, or at least to 127.0.0.1. Fucking whore should know that if she's willing to make money off of her "beauty", she should expect this kind of thing. As a protest, I say all of my ISP bretheren blackhole her site to irrelevance. Fucking stupid cunt. God I hate women like that.
So under "right to privacy", we are never allowed to include someone's home in a photograph? I guess that makes this product completely illegal.
No, not quite. The California Constitution does include a right to privacy. Excessive compromising of someone's privacy is considered harassment - for example - if I followed you everywhere with a webcam and broadcast your every move, that would be harassment. Or, if I set up a streaming webcam that looked INSIDE your window, that would be harassment.
In the case in question, the website DOES have a gazillion coastline pics. However, Streisand's picture is labelled as "Streisand estate", and is coincidentally centered on her property and rather tastefully done. You could easily argue that Adelman went out of his way to single Streisand out among coastal property owners and identify her estate.
Now, where she lives is public information (available through freedom of information act). But excessive compromising of her privacy is harassment, or in violation of paparazzi laws.
I think that is where she is coming from. Adelman went out of his way to be a dick, and she is calling him on it. Be interesting to see how it plays out.
An anonymous reader writes "The NYTimes (sign up for free subscription) is reporting about a person who wrote about a prior relationship with a former Miss Vermont.
So, an anonymous reader submits an article from the NYT and casually mentions right off that you can sign up for a free subscription?
Riiiiight...
I couldn't find an actual
Isn't this a-tad-more-than-vaguely reminicent of Dr. Pepper's Raging Cow guerrilla blog-advertising tactics?
Can't the lameness filter reject this sort of thing, too?
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
On a Clear Day You Can See Barbra Streisand's House. Coming to a cinema near you.
Then again /. people probably have a "cypherphunks" macro key on their keyboard...
"Nobody climbed onto her property, nobody's showing her topless sunbathing - in fact, you don't see any people at all"
Looking at the full-size image(someone posted a link in their comment), you can see two surfers and a group of people near a golf cart, all in the lower right hand corner.
However, about the only thing you can tell is that there's a golfcart and the two surfers(maybe 50 feet out in the water) are wearing wetsuits. There's next to nothing as far as detail is concerned- you'd probably have a tought time even counting the # of people near the cart. Still, the lawyer's statement is false.
Please help metamoderate.
As I recall from journalism school, you also have to prove that you suffered as a result of the malicious libel and that the libel was made public. Further to this, you generally have a better case if you can prove that the "suffering" occurred in the form of financial losses -- e.g. interfered with your ability to earn an income or something to that effect.
I looked into this a few years ago when my ex decided to post several years of his diaries on the Internet. It didn't matter that the postings were untrue, public, or malicious -- in the end, it mattered that I suffered no employment/career setbacks!
It seems that this is a clear cut case of libel for Mr. Max. I mean he basically states it in the first part of his writing that he's trying to bring her down because HE doesn't like the hypocrisy of HER site. Of course he does nothing to point out his own hypocrisy.
I mean from reading just his one little article he sounds just as vapid and shallow as all those girls he was demeaning. He tells a story of a girl who was probably brought up all her life to be "pretty" not smart. Someone who was looking for acceptance and thought she had found it and basically got used by a party boy.
Really this guy sounds just like every other snobby, boring rich kid I went to school with. Sitting around getting fucked up all the time, bored to death with doing daddy's business, secretly dispising all of his friends for what they may/may not have done to him. Going to school for a career that never goes anywhere. Feeling oh so great about giving his friends the scraps of his life. And best of all lifting himself up by bringing others down.
It's shit. I personally could give a rats ass about either Mr. Max or Ms. Vermont. I mean at any point he could have been a man and not treated her like a whore. On the flip side she could've stood up for herself even a little during the relationship.
It pisses me off to see people with all the opportunities in the world handed to them, just sitting around jerking off.
It's perfectly legal to call someone a bitch, whore, or doughnut-head. Such statements qualify as insults and epithets, not libel. Now, if you said that Miss Vermont was bitching or whoring, you could be sued. But, again, she would have to prove you meant her, that the info was public, that it defamed her character (which would be difficult if the community already regarded her in this way), and perhaps interfered with her ability to earn an income.
It used to be. She's on Spyglass Lane.
haha =)
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.
Of course, to a celebrity there is no such thing as bad publicity -- or is that just more BS?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I urge all Slashdotters to read the Google cache of this story. Wow. It's unbelievably crass, misogynistic, and utterly puerile.
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. 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! Please kill me.
The groaners keep coming. It's amazing. I mean staggering.
What more needs to be said. I am sure the case will go on and it will be one more chance for the us supreme court to wonder what drugs the florida court system is using.
That's probably a good thing, considering it keeps weirdos like me from peeking in her bathroom window.
It will be interesting to see how long this case survives now that Mr. Max has legal representation.
No, he is a hypocrite on this issue.
1. By voluntarily being and remaining a director of Empower America (a public interest group), Bennett speaks for the group and represents its agenda.
2. The group has made it clear that it is anti-gambling. Being against gambling also emcompasses being against the expansion of gambling. Why be against the expansion of gambling but not be against gambling? The group is against gambling. If you read about the group and its past statements, you'll realize this. Empower America is a right-wing thinktank. It's against homosexuality, atheism, communism, keeping prayer out of schools, abortion, Darwin, gamgling, drugs, "that rock music," violence on TV, and a slew of other right-wing positions. This isn't about gambling addiction. That's just one reason that certain people (who comprise groups such as EA) consider gambling (much like heroin) to be wrong--because it is/can be addictive. The group has stated that gambling is a moral problem (always on the theory that addiction=immorality) and, while they have not actively campaigned to rid the world of it, the group is for curtailing it as much as practicable. If these people could push a magic button and make all gambling disappear, they would do so.
3. I concur with the definition of hypocrite. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess.
4. Bennett's action as being and remaining a director of Empower America (an anti-gambling, among many other things, group) says (professes that) "I am against gambling."
5. His actions, on the other hand -- gambling (and being quite the Vegas high roller, as well... not just participating in a local raffle or $5 bingo game) -- say "I don't find this wrong." People don't actively, intentionally do things they think are wrong (barring any sociopathic tendencies, which I am presuming Bennett doesn't have, and for the sake of this discussion let's just presume he's not a sociopath). People can twist their minds in amazing and irrational ways to convince themselves that something they desire to do is not wrong, but that of course doesn't make it right, objectively or subjectively.
6. So, Bennet says (by virtue of his voluntary and continuing directorship)"Gambling is bad." He does not believe that, however, by virtue of his actions. He lost millions gambling.
Your theory is that one cannot be a hypocrite without speaking. That's blatantly not true. Speech is one form of professing something. Actions are another, and quite often the most common way of exuding hypocrisy. People are more mindful of their words than they are of their actions.
Bennett professed (by virtue of EA directorship) that he was against gambling. His gambling problem, however, shows he does not himself have that virtue, nor does he subjectively believe gambling to be wrong.
Thus, Bennett is a hypocrite.
QED.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
There are some things that just don't need to need to be explained. This is from the offical website of Miss Vermont. (Flash required)
Starrlettes on Gossip
Anyway, to get back on topic, I really don't know what Streisand's problem is. It's not like the guy was purposely taking a picture of her place just because it's her place...they are documenting the entire California coastline. Since when is science subject to a 50 million dollar lawsuit for taking a picture? I would say this lawsuit is totally frivolous.
[geology geek]By the way, those tilted beds look really nice...you can see the dips changing from left to right. If it wasn't a picture of queen bitch's house, I'd set it as my background. [/geology geek]
Project Steve
If one lone terrorist got her to shut her big nosed face for 10 whole years then perhaps the US has misjudged these terrorist people.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
One thing that should be verifiable is the two speeding tickets that are referred to in the story. That doesn't make the rest of the story true, but it would be an interesting place to start.
Look we understand you are a left wing fuck with a hard on for Bennet. Nothing he could ever say or do would change your mind. That is fine. You just hate his guts and want anyone that thinks like him rounded up and shot to make the world safe for "people like you."
But you are fucking wrong and if you can't admit you are a hypocrite.
People like Bennet and *you* are why I have a wall full of guns. One has to be able to protect ones self from crazy zealots and wackos.
...for him to have the new censored webpage at the location http://www.tuckermax.com/Stories/missvermont.htm - I thought he couldn't use the words Miss Vermont anymore? :)
That coverage may not be available to her.
But she is a stupid old bag. Her day is over.
She just can't get a grip on it.
liberal pig bithch
It's invalid because it was issued without giving him an opportunity to contest. From
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)."
" 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. "
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
I think that is fine. She is a liberal cunt that has been telling us her ideas or what is right and wrong in my state for too fucking long. Her wealth and popularity don't give her special rights. So the pictures are jsut fine. Some one is calling her on it. She reveals she is just another liberal who thinks the law is just for "the little people" and doesn't apply to her. But it does.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
I also bet she pays her taxes and doesn't re-incorporate in Bermuda.
I bet you're right. Incidentally, I also have some really fabulous beach property in Fargo that you might be interested in....
It is hardly specific it says "Striessand Estate"
Could be Billy Bob Striessand's Estate for all I know.
that he can't wrestle with that judge... for now.
He's sent copies of his "exploits" around the world through his friends. Everyone who matters to him knows, and the rest of the world can use the google cache.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Just because she can afford to hide the true ownership of property doesn't give her special rights.
The fact is that in Califorina the citizens have right across private proptery to reach the beach or navigable water. That is WTF she is nervous about. people crossing her property to get to the beach.
She still is a stupid liberal bitch.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
If that's true, then I should be able to block dissemination of all information that connects my name with my address. I.e. the "sharing" done by my bank, amazon and whoever else I have ever bought stuff from.
1. According to its spokesperson, Empower America has no official position on gambling.
Presumably Bennett is not responsible for living up to the virtues espoused by colleagues, fellow directors in EA, for example, such as Kemp, right? That would strike this cat as Orwellian were you to make the argument that he is.
2. Bennett made one statement on gambling before this brouhaha near as I can tell:
Above statement explicitly indicates Bennett's support for individual choice in the matter of gambling as long as such behavior is not utilized as one's means of generating an income. As Bennett himself does not (did not) make a living gambling, he does not appear to be in a state of contradiction to said comments. And in fact since there is no EA official statement on gambling, it is presumed that Bennett is held to the standard of any previous comments he made: doing the math on that, he's no hypocrite there.
Those who give up their power willingly deserve none.
Big fucking deal.
This is teh USA. If she is worried about it she can afford body guards. Better yet she can become responsible for her own protection and arm her self as well.
That is not going to wash. She is jewsh and a public figure. She isn't the only one.
The folks who took the picture are well with in their rights.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
There is nothing weirdo about wanting to peek in Sandra Bullock's bathroom window.
Like she can't afford it. What shit.
C'mon... isn't this a little too escapist-fantasyish, even for slashdot? I know every geek dreams of hitting it off with a Ms.(insert state of choice here), but isn't living it through the eyes of her lawyer Ex-BF a bit much? Talk about living vicariously through others...
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.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
The problem with that is that Adelman lives in California, thus the state court has personal jurisdiction over him.
You can see her naked in her swimming pool! No wonder she is so upset. Now if they'd used a crumby 5MP camera instead of a 6MP, then she might make a deal.
Why slashdot? Why not?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That is what it meant before Janet Reno was AJ of the US. Now the guberment can do anything they want. It can shoot your wife dead while she holds your infant child. I can do this after entrapping you and improperly informing you of your federal court date. It then can jail you while the goverment paid murders go free. Their bosses are give bonuses and retired with full pensions when the shit hits the fan.
Now it's "all right not particulary specified in the constutition are reserverd to the goverment of the United States the FBI and the Department of Justice.
The Miss Vermont Story
This is the complete and unabridged story of my relationship with Katy Johnson, known to my friends and her fans as Miss Vermont. I normally don't like writing about the specific details of relationships or hook-ups for many reasons, but this is an exception. After putting up the giant hypocrisy that is her webpage, she has to be ready for what I write.
I must prepare you, in advance, for what you are about to read...it is as ridiculous and surreal as anything I have have ever written, and possibly anything you have ever read. This relationship was outlandish even by Tucker Max standards. You may not believe some of what is written here. To that, I can only tell you that I have several witnesses to most of the events here, and the wedding was, well, a wedding, so there were hundreds of people there.
Furthermore, this is a long story, because I didn't want to leave out any of the details, lest the story seem forced or less amazing that it really was.
And to Katy: Even though you haven't responded to the email I sent you, I know you check this site every few weeks. You are welcome to email me with corrections or additions to the story. If I got something wrong or left something out, please let me know and I'll be happy to change it. In fact, I'll go farther. If you want to write your own version of our relationship, I swear to my god, that I will post it, COMPLETELY UNABRIDGED, right next to mine. This is your opportunity to rebut anything I say here.
_____________________
The summer after law school graduation, I moved to Boca Raton, Florida and took a job managing my father's restaurants. I wasn't really expecting to meet a girl I would like, as the general intellectual level of South Florida is somewhere above "functionally retarded." After I had been in Boca about two months, I hadn't really had any sort of relationship other than emotionally uninvolved sex with morally suspicious girls, and I eventually resigned myself to vacant sex with the vapid idiots that infest South Florida.
One day I was at my gym, The Athletic Club of Boca Raton. It is a massive airplane hanger of a building; a gym, health club, spa, lounge and restaurant rolled into one. Basically, it's the type of place where guttural grunts and flexing underneath tight shiny shirts passes for foreplay. Welcome to Florida. For several years it's been the "in" place to workout in Boca, one of the primest meat markets in a town full of butcher shops. I usually tried to avoid peak hours and the throngs of scantily clad gold-digging whores positioning themselves for fifth husbands. Don't mistake me--staring at dozens of immense fake breasts spilling out of sports bras is fun for a while, but it gets old quick, especially when those breasts are attached to faces that tell the story vacant personalities do not. These women have circled the drain a few times, and no manner of plastic surgery or trips to the spa can hide that despair that years of whorish behavior and emotional prostitution leaves in the eyes.
I was in the free weight section of the gym, and one girl kept catching my eye, more for what she wasn't showing rather than what she was. She had a navy blue hat on, pulled tight over her face, a loose fitting white cotton T-shirt, and green basketball shorts. Not the standard Boca female gym outfit. Staring at her between sets, I realized that she was very attractive. By trying to hide that attractiveness, she became even better looking. The logo on her shorts said, "Vermont Law," which gave me the perfect in. My law degree would finally get some good use.
I approached her as she paused between sets, and asked if she had attended law school at Vermont. She told me she didn't, that she went to undergrad there, but that she was attending Stetson for law school. I told her I just graduated from law school at Duke, and the look on her face told me all I needed to know. It was about 7:30, she was obviously into me, so I decided throw my hat in the ring:
"So, wha
A very interesting conversation. The constitution has been mentioned a lot. In what I'll refer to as a "preface" to the constitution (the declaration of independence), the founding fathers stated that we had inalienable rights. The top three appeared to be life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We've all done things we're not proud of and that we'd rather not have replayed for large audiences, some more than others. I believe that we can change the past by recreating the effect it has on our future, and that being able to do so is absolutely necessary to anyone, any place, or any nation, pursuing happiness by changing for the better.
What if Johnson is trying to make some kind of a turnaround? Ok so maybe not, and Max could probably be described as somewhat unrepentant himself. But at what point do we lose the right to try to live down our own past?
I submit that free speech was intended as a political right designed to assist in maintaining the basic liberties of it's citizens and not a license for an ass to bray at my front door (technology bringing that close to everyone).
We're all going to die, why not have a little simple respect? The courts and the government will ultimately be unable to govern a people who can't govern themselves. If the pattern of attempted stretching of the constitution and civil law to fit our every whim reaches a critical mass we will lose all the freedom that we can't maintain with whatever weapon we may have within our reach.
What more can I say....play nice.
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and *defending* life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Well the State of Califorina ingnores the state constutition. You have to get *permission* to have the means to defend your life and property. It has to be renewd every 5 years. As soon as the democratic dominated legislature passes the bullet ban you will not even be able to do that. Unless you are a liberal politician or wealthy supporter of course then you will have access to all means to defend yourself. The state constution is only for the wealthy liberal elites. OH I forgot She is a wealthy liberal elite.
I don't know much about her.
Is she still a public figure? I mean she won the title in 1999. (The 2001 title went to an Amy, not Jay)
As for public interest. I hardly think that Tucker presented it in "the public interest", he's trying to make money off her name, and gain publicity. If it had been a newspaper of something similar, then yeah fine. But Tucker's story would have been just good if he had talked about a "former Miss Vermont, who we'll call Miss Vermont..."
I went to school w/ Miss Vermont & have firsthand knowledge of things that are way cruder than the story this guy posted. I would feel bad if she didn't set herself up as an abstinence advocate (not that theres anything wrong w/ it).
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.
They are like that in Vermont.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Bush won get over it.
A recount would have just proven it. *All* votes were counted. Fucking liberals will never admit they are so out of touch with the US voters they *lost* it fair and square. Hang on to your boots because you are fixing to loose again.
Only the entry screen shows in mozilla and you can't click thorugh it. So I know not what she says...
tucker max is the man
And, as i said in a different post, she claimed (whether true or not) her objections were specifically because stalkers (and if you were as despised as much as she was you'd have several too) can now find new and better ways onto her property and into her house.
Then perhaps the hypocritical Ms. Streisand should pay more attention to the 2nd Amendment and buy herself a firearm. When the stalkers come calling, she can then *legally* shoot them and perhaps discourage future unwanted intrusions. At the very least she'll end all future intrusions by *that* stalker.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Are all lefty liberals dunb faggots or just you.
It is probably Streisand's private access to the beach. That's what she is complaining about.
This court case has caused everyone and his little sister to have the photo, all 6 MB of it. Streisand has been self-defeating.
You would rather spend 5 minutes dissing about Nytimes when you could spend 30 seconds putting in an arbitrary name and email address. No.
If some site requires registration, then you have to boycott it. That's your fundamental right. Right?
If you want to stay anonymous, then why dont you write posts as an Anonymous Coward?
You can't have have the cake and eat it too. Applying double standards to yourself is self-defeating.
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.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Besides it is her responsibility to ensure that the people she is getting into that sort of "compromising" relationship with are trustworthy. It's not like kiss-and-tell stories are a unusual issue for celebrities.
By actually naming her he is making a strong statement that his story is true. If it were not then he'd be opening himself up to a clear-cut libel suit. Being a Duke Law grad he is clearly not that stupid. Note that Johnson did not sue him for libel, which is almost an admission from her that the story is accurate (despite the NYT quote that she emphatically denies the story).Asshole:
Tucker Max
Tucker Max is a big asshole
The entry is posted by "Katy" and if you click on that name you can see a link to another post of hers under the entry TMD: Tucker Max Drunk, although the post is not there. However, there are some other entries, such as:
How a man with a small penis and knows autofelattio, describes his own drunkenness
"wow dude, I'm such a loser. I got Tucker Max Drunk at my internship and got fired."
and posted by Tucker Hater:
A fictitious word used to build up ones own ego.
I am so full of myself, I will invent the phrase "Tucker Max Drunk" and spread it throughout the internet.
So the woman got drunk, acted like a fool and slept with a real lout. In addition, she went on to aggravate these loathsome crimes by endorsing, on her website, abstinence and temperance (and this despite her previous behaviour, cf. supra). And as if this wasn't enough she topped it off by pretending to be in favour of free speech while sneaking off to seek an injunction against aforementioned lout. Obviously, for being such a hypocritical slut she deserves -- at the very least -- to be tied up and burnt at the stake.
... shall we say, somewhat childish; her homilies are purely asinine; nor does she come across as the most fascinatingly interesting person in the world (indeed, are there any interesting Mensa members out there? And if yes: are they all in hiding?) So what?! Surely, she too has the right to free speech?! Or is that a right that becomes slashdotters only?
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
The liver is evil and must be punished.
I looked at the thumbnails, and at the large version of that photo, and what it revealed to me was not anything spectacular about Streisand's house, but rather that I REALLY want a "6 megapixel Nikon digital camera". The enlargement is gorgeous.
The people have rights not explicitly enumerated to them (9th amendment) and arguably there are penumbras to the 4th amendment that illuminate a right to privacy.
Hey Babs.. if I were you I'd be more concerened with the toxic green gook flowing out of the tube and down the cliff on the north side of your property. Or that semi-clothed homeless guy on the beach looking for a place to climb up and 'soil' your pool. Then again, maybe he can save your marriage [man that movie sucked].
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Parent poster is defendant in Sreisand lawsuit. Mod parent up.
do it now, or you can lick the leathery sacks of my Klingon/Bovine breeding experience
Why should an actor or actress have more protection than any other person, if they are allowed to hide their addresses etc to stop stalkers why is it that everyone else's address's are out there.
What makes the life of an actor or actress any more valuable than my life or yours.
Ok he tracked them down and shot them dead but whats the difference between that and the other thousands that are shot dead every day in the rest of the world. You could even argue the fact that they make no real contribution to the real world, only in make belive (although this is not my point of view) no life is any more or less important than any other life.
S
Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
This guy is obviously stalking this woman, you only have to read the first few paragraphs to see this bloke is a self obsessed sleeze ball who's out for revenge for being dumped and I would put good money on him being a psychopath.
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
Of the two people in the man story, Johnson is by far the more scary. In fact both of them are *way* scary followed by the judge in the case who is scary AND ignorant.
.
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.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
Katy Johnson ... uses her site to promote what she calls her "platform of character education."
...
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.
"Max Power...great name!"
"Thanks. I got it off a hair dryer." -Homer Simpson.
"You don't cuddle with Max Power, you strap on, and FEEL...THE...G's!!!" -Homer Simpson.
Guess he's not a practicing lawyer, just some guy with a law degree. From the website: munsoned (v) - To be up a creek without a paddle. To have the whole world in the palm of your hands and to blow it.
if he can't vacate this obviously unconstitutional order. Particularly when issued on an ex parte basis.
I swear to god that this should be posted in the humour section. I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. There's just something about stupidity that I really enjoy.
"She couldn't get enough of me... She loved sex with me because I was apparently much better than anyone she had ever been with."
This guy is so full of shit! I love it! Not only should guy be allowed to post his website, but it should be mandatory for everyone in the world to read both his and her websites.
Thank you. This is all that I have to say. If you need me, you can find me doubled over laughing on the floor.
Lat. and long. of her house:
N34 00.65, W118 47.24
(listed below picture)
Roadtrip with the GPS reciever everybody!
"I can see my house from here! .... call my lawyer!"
.
.
.
.
.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Too bad, the wedding would have been fun.
Someone needs to make an example of that judge. What a dimwit. Is there any online list of public officials that deserve immediate execution? If there is, please move this guy to the front of the line.
:/
Sometimes I really do hate this country
Anyone who fucks a lawyer can't be all bad :-)
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...
In case you haven't read it (in which case shame on you).
Music
Movies
Microcode
High-speed Pizza Delivery
(from Snow Crash)
After spending quite a long time reading that Max Tucker story and then looking through Katy's website, I believe I have a good picture of the mentality of this woman's life.
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.
Miss Vermont and Barbara are both public figures which, by all previous counts, invalidates any suits of libel or slander, and/or rights to privacy as described here. (granted they still have certain rights to privacy, but just not the right to protection against 'name calling' and 'this is where she lives') Public figures are supposed to accept the good, the bad, and the ugly, and that's it. If you make money on your names, people can use it. I cannot see any reason whatsoever that these people can say that either of these cases is an invasion of their privacy, simply because it tells more than they would like to, even if it is beyond what they would like the public to associate with their image. They both need to grow up.
Speak for yourself.
This is Tucker-fuckin-Max we're talking about. He's not just some guy, he's the self-proclaimed God's gift to women. I don't know about that, but he is damn funny and if you haven't purchased his new book you damn well should.
Thanks,
--
Matt
If every other house on the block is listed, then it's probably not too hard to figure out which one Ms. Bullock owns.
He keeps telling you at the start of the story how amazing it's going to be, and when you get to the end you realise it's just a standard girl-meets-bastard, girl-gets-treated-like-dirt story. The only amazing thing is that he has no shame, so he isn't embarassed to admit how nastily he treated her.
"as it shows details of the property that one would not ordinarily be able to see from the road or the beach"
:D :D :D
Like what her vergina or her nose?
Find out if 'miss vermont' (and I had such a high opinion of Vermont until today!) received two speeding tickets on the same day. If so, I'd believe the rest of the story a lot more.
!Sig
Timothy? (ex-)GIRLFRIEND? OH COME ON!
Shoulda saved this story for Troll Tuesday so it could be crapflooded with slashdot gay linux trolls the way it so justly deserves!
[*]Standard supersticious slashdot talisman to ward off evil moderation
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Actually she's in California. You can't use deadly force except in direct defense of your life against an armed opponent. Legally she is supposed to run away if at all possible.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
One day I even took her to a gun range... She was fascinated, and loved it so much she started going on her own, and eventually bought her own pistol. /.er and saying, "We're cool, so here you go."
Ok, there isn't a bigger "Oh crap" moment in that whole story. Its like Bill Gates handing an AK-47 to the average
What, me Tweet?
You can see her in the photo, entering the house, presumeably to hide from the helicopter. I've highlighted the specific area of the picture and enlarged it a bit. See it here.
Does this change the legality of the photograph? Does this bolster the argument that it is an invasion of privacy?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Having photographed Barbra Streisand and all...
You can't use deadly force except in direct defense of your life against an armed opponent.
This is bullshit no matter what state of the Union you reside in. The Supreme Court has ruled that using deadly force in defense of life - yourself, your family's your neighbor's - is perfectly acceptable. No state has the ability to challenge this.
All one needs is a reasonable presumption of imminent danger, and this includes finding an intruder in your house at 2:00 in the morning. A 'reasonable presumption' is that the fucker intends to kill you and your family - and that's enough to justify sending him to the morgue.
Although with a Californian jury I wouldn't want to take any chances.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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
Let's play roshambo for it!
The whole reason you control state governorships and legislatures is because they control the national electoral process.
Politics is not a game for the fainthearted. Its for keeps, and for the most important job in the world, you do whatever it takes to win.
I'm not stating my own philosophy here... this isn't like electing a student council member; trillions of dollars are at stake. Its not about fair, its about power.
Why do you think we have the DMCA? Do you think it has to do with "fair" and "just". Cripes, you can't change anything if you don't understand the system.
But presidents aren't elected; they're appointed by the states.
Every one of them.
Or did you skip those four years of high school?
"But celebrities have some real concerns"
Do you think a celebrity has more right to privacy than a non-celebrity? The same? Less?
Isn't part of being a celebrity that more people know you?
So if you want more privacy, simply remove yourself from the public eye.
You're so boring, all of you simple groupthinkers. Bush is in office, and you're still grinding your misshapen teeth over it. Those who said they'd leave if he was elected should have left even faster given how he ended up in office. Live up to the spirit, not the letter.
Nov-Dec 2000 was a while ago. Stop pouncing with quivering excitement to respond when someone writes that Bush was elected, and channel that energy to calling for reform to prevent it from happening again.
Sounds like Streisand really shot herself in the foot with this lawsuit. The site with photo is a limited-interest site. Now because of the lawsuit, many more people can see where her house it.
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
My town makes its property assessment data available online. This includes not only where the property is located, but also has photos of the properties AND the owners name.
Anybody can access the site.
When I closed on the house, I never signed a consent form or anything. Can I sue for lots of money too?
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
Tucker Max is clearly a twat.
On her page about slander, Katy says:
This is coupled with the American flag and the words "Free Speech!" FLASHING on top of it (bet Betsy Ross was thinking of that when she sat down and began sewing).
I can't certainly think of one obscene thing that I'd like to make her gag on....
From the above-mentioned website:
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
The woman has obviously spent quite a lot of her time trying to communicate some very important messages:
"Think of a disaster as an incentive,
to get real clever and inventive.
Flowers are a great cover up,
for goof ups."
I don't believe it necessary to make any further comment this.
Many counties have a parcel search web site. You can search by parcel ID, lot/plat# whatever, address, or taxpayer name. If Ms.Streisland lived in my county, and her house was registered in her name, I could look it up, have a plat map, and with the click of a button switch to Orthagonal Photographs (which are better than satellite becuase the lines are straighter).
Search google for "parcel search".
In my state (and many others) you can also search for civil, criminal and traffic records on line. It's the same info you could always get, but now it's a click away rather than a drive downtown to the clerk's office.
Some info is public, she needs to just deal with it like the rest of us.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
He's an alpha-male who's entertaining. Why is it making you so angry? Take a stroll outside and get away from the terminal for a minute; it's obvious that online content is not good for you. Perhaps a prescription for some kind of stabalizing agent is called for, on a temporary basis, to prevent you from popping a vein or something.
Jayson Blair so you don't have to ask
All this loser talk is a little over the top.
I think he's pretty cool... he's rich, in Florida banging hot chicks.
Seriously, sounds like a great life.
Is this what they mean by "Void in Vermont?" I know, I know. It is stupid - but someone had to say it.
"I can't stand the Tuckers of the world but I can only hope he appeals and wins."
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.
All of this was obtained fromp ing/vi ewer.asp. In this case I did this after entering the Long/Lat from the coastline site into Mapquest and then determining the search area would be near ZUMIREZ DR in Malibu Ca.
p t=aGU8MzExMTExMDIxMCdtcjwwJ2JsZTxpbGBxJ3l0bTwsMDA5 LzY4MjkneHRtPDI1LzEwNjE4ODg4ODg4ODg4OCd5bXM8LDAwOS 82OTk2ODg4ODg4ODg4OCd4bXM8MjUvMTAyMDExMTExMTExMTEw J2h2PDU4OCdoaTw0MTEndXI8MDE0NTc3MDE3MjExMQ==
http://assessormap.lacountyassessor.com/map
I could have just as easily been trolling through Malibu's Coastline on the LA County website or Mapquest/GlobeExplorer/Terraserver looking for obscenely large houses.
The only thing I wouldn't know if it wasn't for the guy's website is who owned the property. That (as he pointed out) is available publicly, but not online.
Property Information
Assessor's Id. Number 4466-003-009
Site Address 6838 ZUMIREZ DR
MALIBU CA 90265
Property Type
Tax Rate Area (TRA) 10860
Latest Recording Date 08/23/2001
Recent Sale Information
Latest Sale Date
Indicated Sale Price
2002 Roll Values
Land $1,978,063
Improvements $2,152,703
Personal Property $0
Fixtures $0
Homeowners' Exemption $0
Real Estate Exemption $0
Personal Property Exemption $0
Fixture Exemption $0
Legal Description
TRACT NO 12778 LOT 21
Building Description(s)
Improvement 1
Square Footage 10,485
Year Built 1984
Bedrooms/Bathrooms 8 / 11
Units 1
Last updated Sunday, June 01, 2003
Assessor ID Number: 4466-003-009 Year: 02 Seq. No.: 000
ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFER (EFT) NUMBER
ID#: 19 4466 003 009 3 YEAR: 02 SEQUENCE: 000 8
Installment 1
Tax Amount $22,140.37
Penalty Amount $0.00
Total Due $22,140.37
Paid Amount $22,140.37
Balance Due $0.00
Due Date
Installment 2
Tax Amount $22,140.36
Pen/ Cost Amount $0.00
Total Due $22,140.36
Paid Amount $22,140.36
Balance Due $0.00
Due Date
Total Taxes Due $0.00
Here's the GlobeExplorer/Mapquest image for comparison purposes: http://aol.globexplorer.com/gexservlets/gex?encry
Contrast that with Matthew Keller, who owns 500 times as much land just down the road. His name is in the legal description as it's called the "Land of Matthew Keller". Why is his more public than hers? (it's a winery, that's why). Course mapquest shows houses on this land, so maybe he's sold off. Whatever.
The Point is that land ownership is ultimately public information. As long as we pay taxes on it, that is. Do away with property tax and we'll be able to make more of a case for privacy.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
There is no Mega-Portier to save us.
Why the hell has this not been modded up?
I don't see how one can say that Empower America formally taking the position against expansion of the gambling industry is "having no official position on gambling." If you are against X spreading, it's because you are against X in the first place, especially when X is a moral issue. Sometimes you just accept the fact that it's impossible to get rid of X completely, so all you can do is try to prevent it from spreading any further. Many times such a practical position is taken in respect to an issue, but that doesn't mean one isn't against the underlying issue.
I can't find anywhere on the web the completion of the "But adults on their own time..." sentence. I don't see him completing that sentence with "should happily and without moral reservation go out and gamble as much as they can afford to."
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
"get an alarm".. great idea moron. I'm sure she hasn't thought of that one. The difference between you and a female celebrity is that you're not stalked by psychotics. Sure.. somebody could break into your house or gun you down as you leave your house tomorrow, but are you going to go to the trouble to alter your daily routine because you fear somebody is watching? If you are at risk for that sort of thing, which I am sure many famous people are.. you have to take extra measures to minimize the risk, like trying not to draw attention to your house and keep it as hidden as possible.
First of all, what kind of 'hidden' entrances can be PHOTOGRAPHED?!? How is that HIDDEN? If someone is as big a freaking psycho as all you idiots keep implying, wouldn't they maybe think of...i dunno...looking around the house first? Maybe renting a boat/helicopter? Using some binoculars?
Duh. If a friggin *aerial photo* could show it, it wasn't frigging secret to start with.
Second, give me her money and influence, along with her stalkers. She can administrate this box in complete safety, and need never fear stalkers again. You think she'd make that trade? If she doesn't like people knowing where she lives, how about not buying a frigging beachside mansion? I doubt anyone's taking pictures of a 5-floor walkup on the lower east side.
It's like Biggie said, mo' money mo' problems. If you don't want mo' problems, don't get yourself mo' money.
http://xkcd.com/386/
well said. In addition, if you're in your undies in your own bed at 2:00 am, there's probably not that many good places to run to. Plus, you can always use the standard cop's excuse: 'I know it's a small stuffed bear *now*, but in the heat of the moment it looked like an AK-47!'
http://xkcd.com/386/
Is it just me or does it look like there is a) a dead body washing up or b) a frogman infiltrating using a rock for cover on the beach in the lower left of the image?
In either case, the taking of the picture is much less of a concern than what's in it.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Honestly, you don't have any of the ones that the lesbian /.ers would go for there. No Angelina Jolie (done up like in Hackers... *purrr*), no Alysson Hannigan (Willow, like, ya), no Lexa Doig (Andromeda's sexy AI). What's up with that?
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
...the chipping away of our constitutional rights.
The First Amendment guarantees a person's right to free expression. Miss Vermont chooses to express her position of alcohol and extramarital sex. Mr. Max chose to express his contempt for Miss Vermont's hypocracy. I can't think of anything more consonant with free expression than this.
But what about Miss Vermont's privacy? Balderdash. By being Miss Vermont, she's made herself a public figure. Indeed, she uses that status to promote her causes. Good for her; so would I in her position (however, I would choose to endorse different causes!). Public figures have a reduced expectation of privacy; this is well-established in case law. Along with the publicity and fame comes scruitny and accountability.
If this court decision stands, consider the slippery slope ahead for the Constitution. If a beauty queen can get this type of injunctive relief, then surely a politician or government official or judge is entitled to it. Granted, the press delves a little too much into the private lives of our public figures. But when a politician takes a moral stand on, say, abortion, drugs, sex, or alcohol, he has to back that up with a track record consistent with his expressed philosophy.
If it turns out that Sen. X smoked pot, got blasted at frat parties, trolled for hookers, or paid for his mistress's abortion, it calls into question any moral position he might take on those issues.
I hope Mr. Max appeals this court ruling; I have no doubt that it will be overturned on appeal, at some level. It doesn't even pass the "smell test", in my layman's opinion.
Shame on that judge and shame on Miss Vermont -- either own up to your sins (if you believe they are sins) or get off your high horse. You can't have it both ways.
From Mr. Max's website:
"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.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
Bennett is a director of Empower America, together with former vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp, former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota and former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. . . . Empower America opposes the proliferation of casino gambling, and its co-chair, Kemp, recently lambasted lawmakers who "pollute our society with a slot machine on every corner." ~ Gaming Foe Characterized as High Roller, Journal Review
umm..you're not saying that bennet is responsible for all the beliefs of everyone in his organization, are you? There are only 2 references to gambling that I found on empoweramerica, and both were *passing* references by Jack Kemp to opposing the *state-financed* expansion of gambling. Uh...that seems to be Mr. Kemp's opinion, and accusing bennet of hypocrisy because of what someone else said...that's just weak, dude. Seriously. That's like saying you're a hypocrite if you do something that someone you work with doesn't approve of. It's not kosher, man. If you want him to be a hypocrite, post a quote from bennet himself that attacks gambling. Keep bringing me stuff Jack Kemp said in an editorial piece or your personal opinions about empoweramerica and you'll keep failing to make your point. You kept saying that if 'the organization he's the chairman of' supports a position, he does too. I agree with that. However, that organization has no position on gambling. *Jack Kemp* holds the position that states should not subsidize the expansion of gambling, which I see as a fiscal position, as gambling rarely pays off for the state government in any official way. For reference, the casinos in Illinois may be self-limiting profits in order to avoid having to pay a 70% tax on profit that the state governor wants to impose. This will actually LOWER revenue to the state. Oops. Casino gambling is, was, and always will be for suckers, rich people, and cheaters. (none of which are mutually exclusive, btw) Also, this opinion does not make me a hypocrite if I go gamble in vegas, either, just makes me either rich, a sucker, a cheater, or some combination thereof.
http://xkcd.com/386/
So, IIRC, Tucker is the guy who founded the Mike Ditka Society for Social and Intellectual Excellence. He was something of a legend at the University of Chicago.
Simple. Because that sort of thing never happens.
Trolling for Jesus since the dawn of the new millennium.
Disclaimer: I'm not US citizen and my knowledge of US law may be limited but: isn't the judge 'the goverment' in this case? It is him limiting the right for free speach not Mrs. Streisand. Yeah, the constitution says 'gov shall make no law ...'. So there is no law limitting his free speach. So what was the foundation of judge's ruling?
Hmm, I'm just wondering, how many people would have known the ariel photo showed Miss Streisand's home if she had not raised this issue in the first place? Some people are so desperate for publicity.
Did anyone else catch the section on Miss Vermont's website that says she's a member of Mensa? Are we sure of that?
When former Miss Vermont, Katy Johnson, read Tucker Max's graphic account of their stormy relationship, she sued, winning a temporary injunction that is about to be challenged. What makes this case so interesting is that both parties use their real names as brand extensions to sell themselves and related products. Both parties attended law school, and both have authored books that are published. Both rely on their looks to promote their image. Both have appeared on different programs on MTV, and both are lightning rods for controversy.
Tucker Max breaks his silence since the injunction in an exclusive interview with Annoy.com's Clinton Fein. In addition to publishing all the legal documents filed in the case, Annoy.com, after much consideration, has also published the original account of Tucker Maxâ(TM)s relationship with Katy Johnson. We are not affiliated nor associated with Mr. Max in any way. Our visceral aversion to careless and unconstitutional prior restraints by Judges prompted our decision.
but then I wouldn't be able to link my real life friends to slashdot and confuse new users into thinking that it's a non-geeky site...