Since shortly after our web site "went live", Barbra Streisand has been complaining about a photograph on our web site, 3% of which covers her home. In February 2003, we received a threatening letter from her attorney, John Gatti of Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan LLP, demanding that we "immediately cease and desist from photographing and displaying and identifying photographs of Ms. Streisand's home on the website www.californiacoastline.org [...]".
We refuse to be intimidated by these tactics, which would undermine our constitutional protection of free speech and which would compromise the integrity of this historical and scientific database. As a result of which, we received a second threatening letter.
Our goal is to create a complete record of the California coastline. This record has been used by a number of government, university, press, and environmental groups (partial list) free of charge. It is not possible to provide the public with a complete record without the photographs of the coast that happen to include Ms. Streisand's estate. We do not believe in giving special treatment to wealthy coastal land owners.
Ms. Streisand, who proports to espouse the First Amendment right of freedom of speech (See "My Thoughts On Freedom of Speech" (scroll down to "My Thoughts"), at www.barbrastreisand.com) apparently feels differently when the publication of a photograph shows her backyard.
Here is a copy of the Complaint that Ms. Streisand filed against us in Superior Court in Los Angeles. All of her claims are frivolous and will be vigorously defended.
OK, I have read all comments above and am going to have to say that BS has a valid point. Consider the following:
1. What purpose is served by specifically identifying her home on the website? All the purported reasons for the research can be accomplished w/o specifically identifying the property as hers. I wonder how many other homes are identified by owner?
2. There are lots of kooks out there (BS is one of them). Someone could gain information from the website, which could then be used to assist that person in causing her harm.
3. Her lawyers did ask them to cease and desist. They could easily have stopped identifying her house w/o losing any free speech rights.
50 million? Yes, ridiculous. The fact that it is an environmental activist website, yes she is a hypocrite.
But there is some validity in her complaint.