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.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
it's also possible to direct link as a google partner. thus, avoiding pasting the entire article into an overly long comment.
I think encouraging Trey and Matt to do an(other?) episode on people who think they should be ruling the world is an excellent idea.
By the way, here's the direct link to the high-res mansion shot: huge image
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/
"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
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
>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.
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.
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.
God, you people are such morons. Just use the userid/password of cypherphunks/cypherphunks like everyone else and be done with it!
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
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,
As a public figure, she might have a tough time winning a libel suit.
and this, my firends, is why you must always secretly videotape sexual encounters with hot chicks.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
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.
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!
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.
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. ..."
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
She totally reminds me of the "Luanne" character.... if you know what I mean.
I suggest you read Slashdot
You're both missing the big picture. When the Bill of Rights was being crafted, many opposed the whole idea, not because they were against individual rights, but because they feared that what you two are discussing would happen: that people would come to believe that *only* those rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights were protected.
From: James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, 28 Nov. - 4 Dec. 1787
"A bill of rights annexed to a constitution is an enumeration of the powers reserved. If we attempt an enumeration, every thing that is not enumerated is presumed to be given[to the government]. The consequence is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of the government, and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete."
If the court (the government) is going to enforce a judgment making this guy take down his picture (restricting speech) then it is a first amendment issue. If they both sign contracts to go on "Judge Judy" to have the dispute resolved (the contestants on those court shows sign contracts agreeing that they will abide by the mock-judge's ruling; failure to do so is breach of contract) then it would not be a first amendment issue. As far as I know, Barb is suing in a real "gubment" court. Note that first amendment and right to privacy are not mutually exclusive issues.
If the cops looked through my walls it would violate the 4th amendment, unless they had a valid warrant. No first amendment issue, no right to privacy issue. Solely a 4th amendment search and seizure issue.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
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!
the videotape i understand. how do you arange for the sexual encounters with hot chicks?
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.
Amendment IX (The forgotten amendment)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Remember that the second, more than the first, protects the rest. Oh, but we threw the second out a long time ago. That's why we have the USAPATRIOT Act and TIA. Because no one in Washington thinks they're at all accountable anymore.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
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.
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.
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
Actually, the relevent precedent when you're looking at the fourth amendment is California v. Ciraolo, 476 US 207 (1986).
The Supreme Court in that case, per Chief Justice Burger, held that warrantless aerial observation of fenced-in backyard within curtilage of home was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
"In an age where private and commercial flight in the public airways is routine, it is unreasonable for respondent to expect that his marijuana plants were constitutionally protected from being observed with the naked eye from an altitude of 1,000 feet. The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye."
Barbra's house underlies the Federal Airway (V299) between Ventura and LAX. It is basically located on an aircraft-freeway in a high-traffic area. It would be hard to imagine any place with a lower expectation of privacy from air traffic.
Kenneth Adelman (Defendant)
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.
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.