Barbra Streisand, Miss Vermont, And Your Website

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."

Comments

sewer pipe?

[NixterAg]

Is that a sewer pipe sticking out of the cliff?

Re:PLEASE STOP USING NYTIMES

[Gerad]

Why oh why do so many commenters encourage us to karma whore by complaining about an issue like this that has been discussed to death several times already?

Re:New Slashdot Poll

[bsharitt]

Now you've hurt CowboyNeal's feelings.

Re:Zing!

[charon_on_acheron]

To paraphrase the three anonymous cowards who replied:

WAAAAHHHH!!!!!! We wuz robbed. WAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Re:Zing!

[Gaijin42]

He was not appointed. The supreme court decision was not if bush should be President or not. It was should Florida be allowed to change their election laws, by fiat, DURING THE ELECTION. The answer was no.

And if the answer had been yes, the recount that the democrats were asking for WOULD HAVE MADE BUSH PRESIDENT.

Not so fast

[GnarlyNome]

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)

Re:Zing!

[jericho4.0]

The person who modded this 'flamebait' is a closed minded prick, and if I should be so lucky as to metamoderate him, I shall mod him 'unfair'.

Oh, and for you new moderators, this post is 'offtopic', it's in the pull down menu right above this post. Don't forget to click 'submit' when you're done moderating.