Barbra Streisand Sues to Suppress Free Speech.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 09:27 AM
link   
"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."

www.californiacoastline.org...


I guess Ms. Streisand's concerns for the environment only apply to others as is the prevailing liberal stance. She asks everyone else to "cut back on energy use" and "use outdoor clothes lines" to save on energy. She faxes political threats to industry and commercial businesses as well as the republican party (and doesn't spell check them first) about concern for the environment and now puts herself before a huge project which is finallt beginning to tackle one of California' biggest environment woes, the erosion of it's coastline. I wonder how she feels about Microsoft Terra Server which provides sat images to GIS companies and government agencies having her house included in the mix!! I mean, they are mapping the entire coastline in a study!! Is this fridgid bitch really this egotistical? The sad truth is, you bet she is! Oh and btw, anyone see a clothes line out there beside her heated pool and hottub? Didn't think so.




posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Who cares what Streisand thinks...



[Edited on 2-6-2003 by Thorfinn Skullsplitter]



posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 10:00 AM
link   
actually 10 million, not 50 million. Second, she's entitled to her privacy & that should come first. Forget her politics for the now, this is a privacy issue. Doesn't matter if its Streisand, Charlton Heston, Bruce Willis, or Bill O'Reilly, everyone has the right to privacy.By the way, other stars have done the same thing Babs is doing, why target just her?



posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Oh, I'm all for private property and the ability to control who does and doesn't cross property bu the fact is, taking a picture from the air is not illegal, neither is taking a picture from any public location. Public utilities that cross property must also be given service by representatives and they must be permitted access under law as well along with a whole slew of others such as right of way surveyors, emergency response teams and yes, environmental research teams.

Whats the difference between this and a news chopper filming a chase scene? Look at all those houses captured on film and broadcast. I don't think they publicized her house as a selling point to the project to begin with. Her lawsuit made their page and then they listed the pics that were in question but hey, its not illegal. Just look at NASA's mission to map the world. How many people's houses do you think are included at almost as good resolution as these pictures?

You know if these were paperazzi taking a flight just to catch Old Babs in her skivvies, I could see her point but this is a baseline for coastal erosion. They need these before pictures to prove an industry has cause significant erosion with unlawful practices. For God's sake, this is what the liberal party's calling card consist of!! Hey, I can find every house I've ever lived in in an aerial picture online. Its called Geographic Information Systems and one of it's cheif objectives is the free-sharing of data to the whole GIS community. Nope , your argument holds no water either with me or the law in California. I guess you could say its eroded.



posted on Jun, 5 2003 @ 12:11 PM
link   
You'd think some of these celebs were the most deprived, pitiful people on earth the way some of them whine so much.



posted on Jun, 5 2003 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by romantico

why target just her?


Let's see....huuum...May be just to show how she's hypocrite and when it comes to her, she don't mind/care about what she said before ? " Do what I say, don't do what I do " See what I mean ?


" Do what I say, don't do what I do " is the perfect motto for the left in fact. When I see the astronomical difference between what they say and what they do, I'm amazed.

Aaaaahhh, the left. Without it, we would live in a so wonderfull world.



posted on Jun, 5 2003 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Why don't you go out & ship anyone who doesn't agree with you off to cuba?Talk about whinning!Man, you are so threatened by anyone who doesn't agree with you.I don't see where Streisand is a hypocrite in this.If she were a conservative,you'd be singing a different tune.Hypocrites?Dr.Laura is the biggest Hypocrite!I'll give you some quotes of hers,...but,chances are you'll defend her because she's a conservative.Ann Coulter? Sean Hannity? Man, I thought this discussion was dead!



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Barbra does not really care about the picture taken. She us using it as a way to get at a company that goes against her enviromental views though. It is kind of like a legal black-male. It is a very useful tactic in a bunch of situations.



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Nope romantico, you wrong.


It's like when the UN did their Environmental Summit in Rio. They were speaking about how to save energy, how to don't pollute the world and so on....But in the same time, all the doors were open and the air-conditioning system was running at 100%.

Do you see what I mean ?



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by romantico
Why don't you go out & ship anyone who doesn't agree with you off to cuba?Talk about whinning!Man, you are so threatened by anyone who doesn't agree with you.I don't see where Streisand is a hypocrite in this.If she were a conservative,you'd be singing a different tune.Hypocrites?Dr.Laura is the biggest Hypocrite!I'll give you some quotes of hers,...but,chances are you'll defend her because she's a conservative.Ann Coulter? Sean Hannity? Man, I thought this discussion was dead!



Romantico, man I have no earthy idea where you got all the ammo to paint my opinions like that from the last post I wrote. As for limiting the right of speech for someone who doesn't agree with me, I think you pretty much hold a monopoly on that ideology. Whining, if thats your take, then I guess its your take but I'm not the one sueing a mapping environmental project because my home is pictured and referenced in a scientific study nor the one defeading said hypocrisy with no other basis but my political agenda.

As for being threatened, I have no problem with a difference of opinion and by Goerge, if someone can produce evidence to the contrary, I'll change my view. To me,being correct is more important than allegience or pride. I seek truth and fact no matter how it damages my position because if its varified, I still my question it, as in some scientific theories, but I'll accept it as the current working theory.

Its almost as if you are transferring all your insecurities to the other posters on here. You tell them to shut up and then accuse them of wanting to ship anyone who disagrees with them off to Cuba. I mean, geez! where the hell did that come from? How old are you anyway if you don't mind my asking? We either have a difference in maturity or mentallity because I just can't grasp your arguments.



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
Nope romantico, you wrong.


It's like when the UN did their Environmental Summit in Rio. They were speaking about how to save energy, how to don't pollute the world and so on....But in the same time, all the doors were open and the air-conditioning system was running at 100%.

Do you see what I mean ?



UP, don't forget the summit in Africa where they (guess who?) decided to protect African culture from industrialization and commecialization while they dined on catered food in a ritzy hotel while 2 miles down the road the said culture they were protecting was photographed. Children living in squaller drinking tainted water out of mud puddles whos only goal for the day is something to stop their hunger pains. I'm sure if given the chance, they'd let that culture go for the mere crumbs left under the table after these elitist got done stuffing themselves.



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I'm basing this on all your other posts! You HATE being challenged.I still think your full of it.If this were ANYONE else whom you respected/admired,your opinion would be total opposite.We're going in circles here!



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I guess you must be referring to her trouble with the gay community. The truth is whether she is wrong or right, her show is based largely on her opinion from her expertise and experience and its her right to tell the opinion on her show if she or her producers pay for the airtime to say it. She can't force anyone to listen to her if they don't want to and she can't be forced to subscribe to a political agenda just because it goes against her religious, moral, and medical health beliefs. I have no information regarding Dr. Laura doing anything except offering her opinion to those who ask and allowing those that want to listen to her responses. The only thing I see surrounding D. Laura is her defense of her opinion and the right to have it and say it. I'll aways defend that right but I don't believe any group has a right to legislate personal opinions. I have mine, she has hers, you have yours, the gay community have theirs. I'm glad they can insult Dr. Laura if they want but I don't think they can force her to change her personal belief or represent a false statement as her belief.

We already have physicians whom can't medically consider cures to desease without considering its "PC" ramifications. If your having rectal bleeding, chances are a physician's training in medicine tells her / him that certain social activities damage this area but they can't tell someone that.

Its like if I went to a doc. with every bone in one hand broken and he asks me how it happened and I tell him I hit it with a hammer everyday. Common sense would tell us that he would tell me to stop doing that and let it heal and never do that again.

But because "handhitting" is part of my social orientation, all he can do is try to minimize my pain everytime I decide its time to hit it for fear of being sued because telling me to stop would violate my rights and "offend" me. Meanwhile I'm using funds from personal insurance or federal programs to support medication for a process I could stop if I wanted to while people with real deseases by no fault of their own have to deal with losing the resources my little exercises are taking away.



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by romantico
I'm basing this on all your other posts! You HATE being challenged.I still think your full of it.If this were ANYONE else whom you respected/admired,your opinion would be total opposite.We're going in circles here!


Don't be so sure of yourself. I begin to think that I've been screwed up with the last Irak war, and it's not a pleasant thing. But I'm able to understand when I do a mistake. Of course, I just wrote " I begin to think ". I didn't write :" I'm sure that I've been "...Ok ?


For astrocreep :

You're in astrocreep.
I wrote it " Do what I say, don't do what I do ". The UN are specialist in that matter. And they wonder why there is so anti-UN peoples. Me, I wonder when the peoples will finally understand what a BS the UN are.



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreepI'm not the one sueing a mapping environmental project because my home is pictured and referenced in a scientific study nor the one defeading said hypocrisy with no other basis but my political agenda.


The issue is more about personal rights, and rights to privacy in my mind.

The pictures are very revealing about her property... and they are available to anyone who wants them for any reason... not just "scientific studies of coasline erosion". Not all information should be free all the time to anyone who wants it. Just because we "can" photograph in detail the entire coastline (including private homes) and post them for all to see, is no reason we should.



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by romantico
I'm basing this on all your other posts! You HATE being challenged.I still think your full of it.If this were ANYONE else whom you respected/admired,your opinion would be total opposite.We're going in circles here!



Can we please discuss issues and leave personal insults to the kids in the school yard? I know its first in your "playbook" to take attention away from the subject by personally attacking its presenter but really it is old hat and most on this board are more educated than the general public. Never ever have I questioned anyone's right to state an opinion just mine to have discussion about it. I would just appreciate very much if you could stick with the topic and deal with the information however, if its your only way of dealing with things you don't like then by all means, have at it. I just feel I should inform you that most is at your own expense.

And it is anyone else. Every other person living on the coast is a part of this too. She's not being singled out, she singled herself out. We all have had our residences photographed from the air whether we know it or not and the images are used in different projects by city planners, environmental scientist, climate and weather studies everyday. My point is, Its not illegal to take a picture as long as you don't tresspass to do it. This crew was working on a bonafide project, was in legal air space, and did have proper clearance to fly the route. People take pictures out of plane windows everyday and yes some post them on the web. The only law is the copyright law in which they legally own the pictures. They didn't steal her home by taking a picture of it and broke no law by posting the pics as the picture itself is copyrighted not the actual structure which was photographed. Its still there.



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by William

Originally posted by astrocreepI'm not the one sueing a mapping environmental project because my home is pictured and referenced in a scientific study nor the one defeading said hypocrisy with no other basis but my political agenda.


The issue is more about personal rights, and rights to privacy in my mind.

The pictures are very revealing about her property... and they are available to anyone who wants them for any reason... not just "scientific studies of coasline erosion". Not all information should be free all the time to anyone who wants it. Just because we "can" photograph in detail the entire coastline (including private homes) and post them for all to see, is no reason we should.



As I stated earlier, I have no problem and actually advocate private property and having privacy on it. But, certain entities are allowed to conduct pertinant business and enter private property such as law enforcment (in pursuit), right of way surveyors(under state procurement), utility providers ( usually in the contract one signs for service).

If we exclude Babs property from the study then we set a precedent to allow those involved in illegally causing the erosion to use the same defense as well which would make the project null. really I could see her anger if this was the Enquirer or something like that but being its a research study which included the entire coastline in question, the only reason I can think of to launch such a suit designed to cripple a project dealing with an issue that endangers her property as well as all the others is to draw media attention to it which would then "contradict" the whole privacy issue anyway.

and btw, thanks for presenting the first argument in opposition to my point which clearly submitted a logical argument while upholding a civilized tone.

[Edited on 6-6-2003 by astrocreep]



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I couldn't agree with you more!I'm glad someone else see's where I'm coming from here.I don't love/hate Steisand.But more & more nowadays people's politcs comes before ANYTHING.I think she's an easy target & has every right to sue!



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreepBut, certain entities are allowed to conduct pertinant business and enter private property such as law enforcment (in pursuit), right of way surveyors(under state procurement), utility providers ( usually in the contract one signs for service).

Indeed. However, these entities have a responsibility to keep private things private and restrict their activities to that which they are assigned. Certainly one can ascertain the alternative motives of an ecological activist group including nice high-level arial shots of mansions right on their eroding coastline. There is no reason they could not have operated in a more sensitive manner on this issue, other than to serve motives not specified.


If we exclude Babs property from the study then we set a precedent

From my understanding of the lawsuit, she is not asking that the photos that show detailed arial shots of her properpty be excluded from a valid study, she simply doesn't want them publicly displayed, and made available to anyone who asks. This seems to be a very logical request. And the reaction, to provide detailed photographs of a private citizen's property to anyone who asks, seems a very irresponsible stance.


really I could see her anger if this was the Enquirer or something like that

No. It's just the entire online world. (in theory)


but being its a research study which included the entire coastline in question,

There are better ways to examine this phenomenon than non-aligned photographs from a non-calibrated variable altitude helicopter unable to take the exact same picture in the exact same way one year later. This seems less like a valid study, and more like a public awareness campaign for the cause. (which by itself, if is a noble effort, but the methods seem irresponsible)

[Edited on 6-6-2003 by William]



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 02:24 PM
link   
You present valid points and makes one wonder why this study doesn't utilize aerial photography with vector data which would have shown the data in detailed enough form to spot erosion that could have been obtained through any company that does Photogrammetry such as this one in my area:

www.photoscience.com

The stickler is this is expensive stuff to do and to hire it done on a yearly basis would be very much more expensive than just charting a plane and flying it too. Though they cannot take the exact same pictures, the use of GPS would give them a reference point for follow-up pictures providing they record it when the photo is taken. Most units in aircraft now are sub-meter I think. Of course for this, the camera would have to be fixed mount and still there would be no way to hold the plane exactly as the first picture but I think it would gve reasonable results if the images were high-resolution and close enough..like the ones they took.

Anyway, for anyone interested, the link provides some excellent use of technology for doing this type of study.





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join