286
Trump’s niece explains why ‘rattled’ president is lashing out at female reporters
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
286 points (96.7% liked)
politics
26519 readers
1982 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oftentimes, they are successful. There are certainly times when a wealthy person who tries this ends up failing in their attempt, but it doesn't stand out much because there's a certain level of rich-people-assholey that's almost expected, where people will disapprove, but in an unsurprised way.
Streisand's case was absurd to the highest degree, which was why it blew up. The photo wasn't even of her house, but an aerial shot of the coast which also captured many other houses. Her house was just incidentally in the image, and even if you zoom in close enough to try see details of the house, the resolution is so low that I can't fathom anyone genuinely believing it was an invasion of privacy.
What's more, the purpose of the aerial photos was to document coastal erosion as research for policy making. Especially back in the early 2000s, I'd bet that the majority of photographers sued under invasion of privacy laws were paparazzi, and this is completely different circumstances. People found Streisand's response offensive because she was obstructing a project that was for the public good. It's likely that there were other people whose homes were included in photographs from this project who wouldn't be keen on that prospect, but sucked it up because it's not like they were actively trying to photograph people's houses, and coastal erosion is a pretty big deal for people living on the coast.
Though I imagine most people would be unaware their homes were even captured. I remember that the photo in question had only been downloaded 6 times — two of those times were her attorneys.
Though actually I just learned that her beef was actually far more reasonable than I'd realised — unlike other homes that were labelled anonymously, with latitude and longitude coordinates, hers was labelled as belonging to her. Given the awfulness of paparazzi and stalkers, I actually think wanting her name off of it was reasonable. Since then, she's made it clear that this was all she wanted, and one of the legal documents I just skimmed aligns with that. I can't imagine why the photographer wouldn't have just acquiesced to that request before it got all the way to court (by which point, he'd accrued $177k in legal fees). I wonder if perhaps the initial cease and desist sent to the photographer framed it more like a request to remove the photo entirely.
Wow, that "new" (or maybe poorly reported would be better) info turns the whole story around. Protographer is a bit of a piece of shit for fighting it so much for what now seems to amount to a brag about either knowing which house was hers or that she lived there.
I wish there were consequences for those who misrepresent stories like this so much. Same with the mcdonald's dangerously hot coffee lawsuit (though at least that one seems like the truth is more prevalent than the pro-mcdonald's spin that used to be the popular story).