Does some one have a recent unretouched photo of Citizen Streisand? Scary stuff from a mega-mega hypocrite.
1 posted on
05/29/2003 11:10:49 PM PDT by
friendly
To: friendly
And from the website of California Coastal Records Project Web site, www.californiacoastline.org.
Barbra Streisand Sues to Suppress Free Speach Protection for Widely Acclaimed Website
Barbra Streisand, known for espousing pro-environmental views and criticizing those who don't, has sued the California Coastal Records Project, a landmark photographic database of over 12,000 frames of the California coast shot since 2002, asserting that the inclusion of a single frame that includes her blufftop Malibu estate invades her privacy, violates the "anti-paparazzi" statute, seeks to profit from her name, and threatens her security. Other defendants in the case are the Project's Internet Service Provider, Layer42.NET, and Pictopia.COM, who provides finished prints of the photographs.
2 posted on
05/29/2003 11:16:30 PM PDT by
friendly
To: friendly
Sorry, Barb. No one in his right mind wants to see you (or your property) with your (or its) clothes off.
Try filing in Belgium.
3 posted on
05/29/2003 11:16:51 PM PDT by
dighton
To: friendly
Aw come on. Does any one want an unretouched photo of Babsy babe??? There are just some things one can do without.
To: friendly
Streisand files $50 million lawsuit over aerial photos because, dispite the plane being at 15,000 feet, they couldn't get all of her in the frame.
6 posted on
05/29/2003 11:22:15 PM PDT by
ChadGore
(Frustrate one liberal a day, that's all we ask.)
To: friendly
Aren't limo libs funny ?
7 posted on
05/29/2003 11:22:40 PM PDT by
ChadGore
(Frustrate one liberal a day, that's all we ask.)
To: friendly
And this little piggie squealed all the way home...
To: friendly
"...peeeoplllllle... people who sue peeeeeoplllllllle..."
9 posted on
05/29/2003 11:26:11 PM PDT by
KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
("This is how six-year-olds argue: they call everything 'stupid'." --Coulter, on liberals)
To: friendly
BS is having another "out of mind experience."
To: friendly
Well, if she was aiming to mitigate the harm this website is allegedly causing her, Ms. Streisand's lawsuit is likely to do just the opposite.
Thanks to all the media attention, and the resulting widespread publication of the website address in question, she just propelled an obscure website that probably saw little traffic from the general public into a site that's probably going to be in the top 10 in this week's hit counts.
19 posted on
05/30/2003 5:13:16 AM PDT by
tdadams
To: friendly
This might actually be an interesting case. It involves personal intellectual property. It has always both annoyed and alarmed me that all manner of entities keep "dossiers" on us as individuals, without expressed permission. Doesn't that info belong, first and only, to us as individuals? We all know women who, shortly after they find they are pregnant, suddenly start receiving diaper advertisements in the mail. Spooky. Some computer, somewhere, has huge files on us.
This info is retrievable as evidence in court, BTW. If you are party in a lawsuit, your opponents can head down to the local merchant (where you have one of those discount cards you keep on your keychain) and subpoena all your buying habits. Sometimes this turns up interesting and embarrassing things...
23 posted on
05/30/2003 6:02:16 AM PDT by
Mamzelle
To: friendly
And what has all her crying accomplished? Her house pictured all over the internet..
Try link here if picture doesn't show.
33 posted on
05/30/2003 7:01:52 AM PDT by
TC Rider
(The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
To: friendly
Cmon Barbra, unless your house was built illegally there will be plans of it and the grounds on file with the local building department. You can pay to retrieve those records.
34 posted on
05/30/2003 7:05:28 AM PDT by
finnman69
(!)
To: friendly
50 million? What on Earth did this person violate that constitutes 50 million? Oh...she is a liberal..nevermind.
37 posted on
05/30/2003 7:08:04 AM PDT by
smith288
(The government doesn't need to save me from myself. Im quite capable thank you.)
To: friendly
"I think there's a free speech issue here," he said. "The photographs were taken in a public place where she doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy." free speech issue? Nah.
public place? Airspace is owned by fedgov, it is public, and private citizens are allowed by permission.
privacy? Implicit in the Constitution, but rapidly becoming a historical curiosity.
Both BS and Adelman inhabit worlds of their own imagination. Adelman should win, but shouldn't have been attacked by BS in the first place. Countersuit.
56 posted on
05/30/2003 10:53:43 AM PDT by
RightWhale
(gazing at shadows)
To: friendly
Is that what she is trying to hide?
61 posted on
05/30/2003 11:29:07 AM PDT by
shotgun
To: friendly
Maybe she should also sue her Democratic Governor, who has used taxpayer money to post aerial photos of the entire state on the UC Davis website. How about the private satellite companies who sell high resolution photos of any area on earth you would want.
The web site is:
http://casil.ucdavis.edu/casil/usgs.gov/doqq/34118/ The particular file is: o34118a7se.tif
64 posted on
05/30/2003 2:38:22 PM PDT by
emt_27
To: friendly
She is a mega star-get over it!!! She whines like the leftist liberal democrats. If she don't like pics of her heiness home being taken then she can relinquish her star status and move to a trailor or out of country.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson