Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Barbra Streisand, Miss Vermont, And Your Website

Posted by timothy on from the she-said-he-said-she-said-he-shot dept.

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. He was ordered to remove any reference to the former Miss Vermont or the relationship by court order. This ruling has obvious implications for the First Amendment if allowed to stand. I wonder if I can get the same court order applied to my ex-girlfriends' websites." Read on to see what this has to do with Barbra Streisand.

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."

48 of 744 comments (clear)

  1. Check out the self-admitted bullshit: by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ms. Johnson did not respond to telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment. In her lawsuit, 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.

    Followed somewhat later by

    Mr. Santucci did provide a copy of a news release he issued after the order was issued. "This victory should send a clear message to all parasitic smut peddlers who live off the good names of others," he said in the release, which also noted that Ms. Johnson "emphatically denies the story contained on Tucker Max's Web site."

    Okay SO. Is the story accurate, or does she emphatically deny it?

    As the article notes:

    [...]raises difficult issues, Professor Zimmerman said.
    "If you're telling people they can't talk about something like this," she said of Mr. Max's memoir, "you're also telling them they can't talk about their own lives."

    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.'"
  2. Streissand has a point by Keith+Mickunas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Streissand has a point by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >She does have a right to privacy.

      Does she? And does it trump the guy's Constitutional right to free speech?

      Where in the Constitution is your right to privacy codified, and what are the precise words? Contrast this with precise and clear
      unequivocal grant of the right to speech, and
      then explain how this ruling will stand up to judicial review.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Streissand has a point by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
      >>She does have a right to privacy.

      >Does she? And does it trump the guy's Constitutional right to free speech?
      >Where in the Constitution is your right to privacy codified, and what are the precise words? Contrast this with precise and clear unequivocal grant of the right to speech, and then explain how this ruling will stand up to judicial review.

      I didn't write this- my wife wrote it in an earlier post two weeks ago. But it looks like it will fit here.
      The right to privacy was originally a right derived from Common Law. We all have heard the expression "An Englishman's home is his Castle." This was the rough summary of the right to privacy enjoyed by freemen in England. Of course, it was an ideal, and was not perfectly executed in practice, but the same could be said of much that goes on in this country.

      In the US, much of our law is based on a combination of British Common Law, Statutory, and Constitutional law. And, once a statute is written that enumerates what was previously common law, the statutory meaning takes precedence. For instance, under Common Law, all that is required for a conspiracy conviction is evidence of a plan. You don't need to take any steps to enact the plan to be found guilty. But Statutory Conspiracy requires a plan, plus an act in furtherance of that plan, such as contacting someone to help, or buying a supply. This change was made in an attempt to avoid the concept of "thought crimes." But, if you have the misfortune of living in a state that does not have a statute defining Conspiracy, you are STILL subject to the common law "plan = conspiracy" standard.

      The right to privacy was one of those unspoken, but widely accepted theories of British Common Law. But with the publication and ratification of the US Constitution, many areas of Common Law became statutory. Nowadays, the right to privacy is a statutory one, carved out of the intersection of individual rights derived from the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th ammendments. For instance, the 5th ammendment gives you the right not to self-incriminate, the 4th gives you protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the 14th and 6th amendments insure that you have due process rights (although this seems to fly over the head of the Bush Administration). In the middle of the 20th century, the USSC began to interpret the nexus of these rights as creating an area of individual activity that should be free from government interference. Some of the more famous cases, Griswold v. Connecticut and progeny, Roe v. Wade and progeny, found that while the right to privacy was not enumerated, it was implied, in the same way that if you say "I consult with my attorney Monday through Sunday," you have implied that you also talk to your attorney Tuesday, Wednesday, etc.

      First Amendment concerns have previously been found insufficient to justify terroristic threats. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Nuremberg Files did not enjoy First Amendment protections in listing the names and addresses of doctors on the Internet. A court in April ruled that burning crosses does not enjoy First Amendment protections either. And of course, First Amendment concerns may sometimes conflict with property rights (as in the case of spam). There is no right that is absolute and that trumps all others. You have to consider the situation.

      I don't know what's going on with Streisand, since the story doesn't seem to mention her at all. But it seems to me that you're insisting she has no right to privacy because you don't like her. But if she has no right to privacy, neither do you.

    3. Re:Streissand has a point by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not really. First, laws limiting the government are not construed to be likewise limiting the people. For example the first ammendment declares that the government may not limit speech. However, a person may very well do so. I can require that you not swear if you want to enter my house. If you do swear, I can then kick you out. I am limiting your free speech in my house, but that's fine. The law doesn't say that you are free to say whatever you want whenever you want and noone can do anything about it, it says that the government can't make a law restricting your speech and you can therefore speak freely in public places.

      Also notice that the text of the law deals with warrants. The idea is that police officers can compel a search of your house. This is something normal people can't do. I can't force my way in and search your place, that's breaking and entering. Well, neither can the police unless they get a warrant, which they require probable cause to get. So this law gives the police special rights that normal citizens don't have, but places limits on those rights.

      Also I see nothing in the constitution, and nothing I remember from case law, that would support the fact that you can't photograph the outside of someone's house. It is done ALL the time for lots of reasons. I also don't see or know of anything that gaurentees you a right to secrecy, which is really what Streistand wants. Her privacy wasnt' viloated, he didn't enter her house, photgraph the inside or anything like that. All he did was reveal the generally secret fact that it belonged to her. I fail to see how this is doing anything wrong or how secrecy is in any way legally protected in this case.

    4. Re:Streissand has a point by WatertonMan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There is not an unlimited right to privacy. Further such rights are rights to privacy from the government. That's a rather different case than here.

      Further the right to privacy is far more nebulous than the right to free speech. And even the right to free speech has limits, such as the government's compelling interest in protecting secrets.

    5. Re:Streissand has a point by DarkZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Holy shit! Not only do people not have the right to view my lawn and the exterior of my home, but they also don't have the right to figure out who owns it? I better call my lawyer, but I've got an entire neighborhood to sue. I've also got to go down to the local sign shop and print up a nice, big sign saying, "Thank you for driving by. My lawyer will be contacting you later today."

      I'm definitely in favor of privacy rights, but those rights should not extend to things that you can see on my block with the naked eye. It also shouldn't be applied selectively to celebrities. If someone can take a snapshot of my home and say who lives there, then they should be able to do the same thing for Barbara Streisand.

  3. Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

  4. No Rocks For YOU Ms. Streisand! by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What a poop-head. And as soon as the next storm comes along and carves away more of her sandstone she'll have her mouthpiece (or maybe even herself if she's not to shy about the size of the audience) beg for a pile of rocks to save her precious shack from tumbling into the Pacific as nature goes about it's inevitable business.

    "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
  5. BAD precedent. by falsified · · Score: 2, Insightful
    As far as I can tell, this ruling has nothing to do with your rights online. This has to do with rights everywhere. Can a free society ban factual information about public figures? Nope, and if it tries to do so, it is no longer a free society. Imagine Dubya suing Harper's Weekly for saying unflattering things about him. The list goes on and on and it disgusts me that a judge has just agreed to such a list - without even a hearing. This is a court order, no trial or settlement.

    However, I give this about six weeks before it's overturned.

    --
    HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
  6. Re:you cant have your cake and eat it too by offpath3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unless I'm mistaken it's only slander if it's not true. The judge ruled that he could not post any stories about her regardless of whether or not they were true.

  7. Re:sewer pipe? by ClippyHater · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is a Hollywood residence, they need someway to keep the BS at chin-level!

  8. Close your eyes when on an airplane or cruise ship by Brian_Ellenberger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  9. Re:Barbara's house is now my wallpaper by carl67lp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Her house isn't my wallpaper, but some of the beautiful, breathtaking scenes from the San Francisco Bay area are definitely going into my archive.

    This is some incredibly beautiful photography. It's really rather sad that Ms. Streisand can't see the larger picture here. I can't imagine that all of the denizens of San Francisco proper will be suing the company as well. After all, if nothing else, this site and the photos will inspire people to perhaps take up lanscape photography, maybe to visit the California coast, or even to buy property in the area. No matter what happens, sites like these (and projects like these) can be a real boon to the economy of the region.

  10. heat/kitchen by Restil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  11. So the best thing that one can do... by TWX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  12. Re:Best quote in the Streisand story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Besides," Adelman added, "Didn't she say she'd leave the country if Bush got elected? Well, we're waiting."

    It's amazing the number of people who will run to the government to play bully for them when they're angry, but who feel that government power is evil when it is in the hands of someone they don't like. They need to learn that there are powers that no government ever should have regardless of the motives for using them. When you are willing to wield that power or have it weilded on your behalf, decrying its use at other times is more than a little hypocritical.

  13. Clinton? by grub · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Sooooo... you can't write about a former girlfriend, yet any and all dirt on Bill Clinton (a President, no less) including cigars, cum stains and other sordid crud is suitable for public consumption?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  14. Re:laws against harassment == "threat to 1st Amend by kaltkalt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  15. Re:If only... by danb35 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Judge Lewis ruled on May 6, before Mr. Max was notified of the suit and without holding a hearing.
    Based mostly on this statement, I'd guess that Judge Lewis's order was a Temporary Restraining Order, or TRO. A TRO is a fairly common device used when immediate action is needed, can be issued on an ex parte basis (as seems to have been the case here), and is (as the name implies) temporary--I believe in some jurisdictions they can only last 10 days or so. IOW, this didn't decide the case, it just put the order in place as a stop-gap measure to prevent the "irreversible harm" that supposedly would have happened if the order had not been issued. During that 10-day (or whatever) period, both parties can present evidence to the court, who can then decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction while a full trial is pending. If the plaintiff wins at trial, a permanent injunction can be issued. This order is just the beginning.

    Even as a TRO, Lewis's order sounds very (probably unconstitutionally) broad. The only possible justification for such an order that I can see is a theory of invasion of privacy, but I doubt that would apply to the bulk of the events described in Google's cache of the article--if true, most of them were witnessed by other people, and many of them by lots of other people. Not much privacy there. However, the invasion of privacy theory can be used to stop the publication of true statements (suppose you were to publish my complete credit history--it'd be true, so I couldn't sue for libel, but it'd certainly be an invasion of privacy, and I could get an injunction against it), which is why I think it's the only possible justification for this order.

    The rationale, I expect, goes something like this: If the statements are true and non-private, and we stop publication for a couple of weeks while we (the court) verify that, Max isn't harmed too much. However, if they aren't, and we don't, Johnson's reputation could be permanently damaged.

    In a nutshell, Lewis's order is troubling, but it's not yet time to panic. I'll be interested to see how the case progresses, though. And FWIW, IAAL, but this isn't legal advice, you aren't my clients, etc.

  16. Re:What if you could see inside her house? by liquidsin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't really think this is a first ammendment issue. This is about reasonable expectation of privacy. A photo taken from a public place of the outside of a building shouldn't be considered to be violating a reasonable expectation of privacy. A photo taken through and uncovered window probably would violate that privacy. By the same token, using strange magic to photograph the inside of the home is probably a violation of privacy too. Would you want the cops too see straight through your walls and catch a glimpse of the bong on the table? Probably not...

    --
    do not read this line twice.
  17. Since when does the Times check out its stories? by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    Have you forgotten Jayson Blair already?

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
  18. Re:Stand up and face the music, Tits. by adrianbye · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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

    Do you really believe that? Should every person who wants to run for any kind of public position be forced to lead a quiet and sanctimonious life?

    Personally I don't want the David Souters of the world to be the only ones holding important positions. Real people who have lived real lives should also be able to. Otherwise the US is going to become a really boring (and repressed) country.

    I think over time the guidelines on privacy may have to change, first amendment or not. People are entitled to a certain level of privacy, "celebrity" status or not.

    Adrian

  19. Re:Google's Cache to this story .. by weston · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If half of the story told there is true, it could easily be in Katy's best interest to let it be told. For one thing, it works as a cautionary tale about letting your guard down and hooking up with the first total bastard with a law degree and some charm who crosses your path, so it could really help her platform. For another one, if she does finally go postal and put a few rounds in him, it'll be hard to blame her.

    Yeah, she sure had her vacant and stupid moments in that story, and sure, Tucker Max has that good ol' livin'-a-james-bond-flick appeal, but you know, none of that makes it all right to treat someone like that in real life. I wonder if this guy practices law the way he hooks up with women.

    --
    Tweet, tweet.
  20. Re:Unreal .... by sessamoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The problem (as I understand it) is that he published her name, and assiciated it with her house. That information is not published publicly, and she feels that this violated her rights.

    Land deeds are public information, even in Malibu, California. The LA County Office of the Assessor has these documents for public perusal upon the asking.

    From their website:

    Q: HOW DO I FIND OUT THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF A PARTICULAR PROPERTY?

    A: The Office of Assessor maintains the property assessment roll, which lists the assessee (normally the property owner). The roll may be inspected by the public at the main office or regional offices. For a list of the offices, go to the Assessor's website at: http://www.lacountyassessor.com/contactUs/contactI nfo.asp. You may also request this information by phone at (213) 974-3211 or by e-mail at assessor@co.la.ca.us

    --
    "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
  21. Re:Google's Cache to this story .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is a sad, ugly story. Shame on Tucker Max. It figures that he is a lawyer--what a cruel way to treat another person.

  22. Re:If only... by Mahrin+Skel · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Judge Lewis' order would be more disturbing if it wasn't totally self defeating. How many hundreds of thousands of people have checked out that Google cache by now? An ad in the New York Times couldn't have done a better job.

    He's a jerk, and she's a flake. She's obviously in desperate need of a personality transplant, and had the misfortune of having her first intense relationship with a complete asshole. I've met the type, the very pretty girl that has always been made so aware of it she doesn't know who she is beyond her looks. At this rate, she's not going to find out.

    --Dave

  23. Re:Zing! by Joey7F · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is a bunch of shit and you know it. So some how he would only be appalled enough to leave the USA if the margin in Florida (which time and time again fell in Bush's favor) was bigger?

    You know that he meant "If Bush becomes president..."

    Just take it for what it was; a stupid celebrity, has flair for the dramatic, blowing off a lot of hot air. He never gave that thought any consideration, he was just saying words. They live in a different universe than the rest of us.

    --Joey

  24. Re:Tucker Max galore by rycamor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe I'm an old-fashioned kind of guy, but I don't know what's scarier: the implications of this lawsuit to free speech, or the fact that this narcissistic blowhard of a guy is now being celebrated by wanna-be's all over slashdot.

    The humor is definitely Beavis & Butthead quality, IMHO.

  25. Re:you cant have your cake and eat it too by jpmorgan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In America, truth is absolute defence against libel.

  26. Re:Google's Cache to this story .. by gizmonic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't post that link here! The next thing we know, Miss Vermont will be suing Google and Slashdot!

    I'd mod that funny, if I weren't afraid it might come true.

    --
    WWJD?
    JWRTFM!
  27. Re:Stand up and face the music, Tits. by schlach · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are you advocating that "ordinary folks" shouldn't be able to discuss their encounters with public figures? What if they restrict their conversations to other po' folk who can't afford to sue them? I fail to see how the world would be a better place if Americans were denied the legal right to shine a light on the bullshit being shoveled by someone, especially if they have the money to bring a lawsuit.

    If you've got so much money and want to shut someone up, hire a professional. I am so sick of thugs hiding behind the law. =p

    I for one want normal people with all their flaws running the country. I don't care about their dark secrets, I want to know what they can do TODAY.

    You might. Allegations of corruption, murder, extortion, embezzlement don't concern you? How would you recommend people choose a baby-sitter? I happen to believe, probably not uniquely, that the best indicator of future behavior is past performance. Having the law bar me from discovering what that is hardly helps me decide "what they can do TODAY", no?

  28. Ken Adelman also has a point by kimgh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you walk down a public street with a camera, you can take pictures of any house you like without anyone seriously able to challenge your right to do so. If you are in a public place you can take all the pix you want.

    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.

  29. Re:Google's Cache to this story .. by errxn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No kidding! As far as I'm concerned, he is a far more disgusting person than she will ever be. So what, she's vain and confused; other than that, she's pretty much harmless. On the other hand, do we really need yet another overly self-impressed jerkoff with a loud mouth and a law degree in this world?

    Umm, I'll go with the dumb blonde, thanks.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
  30. Far More Important Life Lesson by NoData · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Far More Important Life Lesson by dipipanone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You'd think we could expect more from a member of MENSA.

      I found myself wondering what it says about the American education system. This is a woman who apparently made Dean's List, got into law school and passed the Florida State Bar.

      Fortunately for the people of Florida, her only work experience in this area was as a summer receptionist -- presumably for Lionel Hutz.

  31. Check the speeding tickets... by Life2Short · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  32. Don't feed this guy's page counter by The+Tyro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  33. this is just wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  34. Re:"Miss Vermont" didn't think this one through... by maxpublic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And we also know that 'Tucker Max' is an arrogant, mysogynistic little boy whose mama shoud've bitch-slapped him more when he was growing up. Scum like this little turd makes me think that forced castration for assholes is the only way to clean up the human gene pool....

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  35. Re:Tucker Max galore by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the fact that this narcissistic blowhard of a guy is now being celebrated by wanna-be's all over slashdot.

    Celebrated by mysogynistic geek losers who hate and fear women because they can't get a date with anything other than a RealDoll. Katy Johnson may have been too stupid to avoid a fuckwit like Tucker Max, but most women can spot these sorts of losers pretty quickly, and avoid them like the plague.

    Why else do you think there are so many frustrated nerds out there? If most women were as lacking in the ability to judge character as Ms. Johnson, we'd be overrun with little nerdlets by now.

    And as for Beavis and Butthead, I show I loved: these two were deliberately written as over-the-top losers of the worst sort. No one could mistake them for anything but losers. That's one of the things that made them so funny. Tucker Max, unfortunately, isn't immediately identifiable as a real-life Beavis, at least to some people.

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  36. Re:Unreal .... by jlanthripp · · Score: 2, Insightful
    However, the "famous" among us are entitled to a certain amount of privacy

    In a word: Bullshit.

    Huge, heaping, stinking mounds of badly decaying bullshit. Bullshit so deep that hipwaders are completely inadequate.

    The "famous" are entitled to NOTHING more than the rest of us. Period.

    We have this wonderful thing in the United States called the Constitution. It has been amended 27 times. The 14th of those amendments contains a clause that is commonly referred to as the "equal protection clause." This clause states that all the people in the United States have "equal protection of the laws." It does NOT say "equal protection of the law, and a little extra protection to those who are famous."

    A logical conclusion of your otherwise reasonable point is that it should be OK to publish somebody's credit card details

    Credit card details are protected by 3 things: Laws that make it illegal to open someone else's mail, laws that make fraud illegal, and the caution practiced by credit card holders.

    or their health records

    health records are protected by doctor/patient privilege

    or the government's defence plans

    These are protected by the National Security Act and other laws.

    Real estate records, on the other hand, are protected by none of these. It's public information, and anyone who cares to stroll into the local courthouse can find the full name and address of every property owner in the county, along with the location, description, appraisal value, and a convenient diagram showing the shape and size of each piece of property they own. If someone goes through the trouble of taking a picture of my house from the street and finding the deed to my house in the county courthouse, they have every right to publish that information. I may not like it if someone did that, but I would like it less if property records weren't public. Why should Barbara Streisand have greater protection under the law than I? Does being famous somehow give one extra rights? How famous does one need to be to get those extra rights? Or does one only need to be rich? How rich? How much does it take to buy some of those extra rights?

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  37. Psychopathic Stalker ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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

  38. Great God Almighty! by TygerFish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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..."
  39. Re:Google's Cache to this story .. by TopShelf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow, this guy really needs to get a life - this reads like a Dear Penthouse letter or something. For a lawyer, he has no tact....

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  40. In defense of Ms. Johnson... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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...

  41. This man is a git! by Erik+Corry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  42. NewsFlash for Tucker Max by hndrcks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.