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

you didn't read the story, did you?

[lingqi]

or you've never been to florida, but in either case: quote from the first paragraph or thereabouts:

...as the general intellectual level of South Florida is somewhere above functionally retarded...

There are other evidence pointing to this as well, apparently.

Re:Google's Cache to this story ..

[Old Uncle Bill]

Oh. My. Fucking. God. That was the funniest story I have read in a while. Not a bad writer, either. Although, after reading her website I don't see how he missed the fact that she's schizo.

Re:Not so fast

[bcboy]

> counted and recounted (about 8 times I think) and G.W. always won .

This is false.

Re:Zing!

[cardshark2001]

First comes this pearl:
My views may not be popular, but I've come to them through study, thought, and experience. They are not based on feelings. They are not based on half-remembered conversations.

Then this gem:
Also, on a slightly different note, I for one am very glad that it was Mr. Bush, not Gore, who did end up elected. I voted Libertarian, as I usually do (though not always), but I don't think Senor Brown would have handled 9/11 very well, and I'm positive Gore would not have. I don't like Mr. Bush as much as I have liked other Presidents in history, but would you really want Gore trying to get the Middle East to give up internal combustion engines instead of terrorism?

That's a pretty popular view, Mr unconventional thinker. You sure you didn't arrive at that idea from something you heard on tv, or a "half-remembered conversation"? You must be basing this judgement on his record in the Congress. Right? Oh, and he invented the internet too, didn't he? Face it, you are a media-spewing idealogue, just like the rest of us.

And while I hate Saddam just as much as the next guy, and even supported the war to the dismay of my liberal friends, Bush is a swaggering, shoot first, ask questions later, cowboy, manure licking simpleton in the world arena. His idea of diplomacy is "We're still mad at you Russia, but at least you're not as bad as France". In answer to your question, I would take brain (Gore) over brawn (GW) as foreign policy chief any old day of the week.