I have friends I treasure that I argue with on many issues. Not surprisingly, given my FB posts, such arguments frequently revolve around the role of government. Lately I cant spend much time on FB, but this topic is worth noting because it encompasses a base issue: the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. I made this statement on a recent proposed promulgation by a branch of federal government: Your rights are once again up for interpretation. A response back: the head of the government agency said they remained committed to the constitution. Ok. A government agency says it is committed to the constitution, therefore no rights are about to violated. Except that your rights are currently being discussed as a part of a public comment process right now. The first amendment in particular. Recently, the forest service said that it will charge for commercial photography in wilderness areas. Not surprisingly, the media shook that like a rag doll, and they should have: Under rules being finalized in November, a reporter who met a biologist, wildlife advocate or whistleblower alleging neglect in 36 million acres of wilderness would first need special approval to shoot photos or videos even on an iPhone. Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who dont get a permit could face fines up to $1,000. oregonlive/environment/index.ssf/2014/09/forest_service_says_media_need.html and denverpost/news/ci_26601005/forest-service-media-need-permit-film So after media coverage, U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell clarified their rule saying, To be clear, provisions in the draft directive do not apply to news gathering or activities.” Except that time in 2010 when the agency refused to allow an Idaho Public Television crew into a wilderness area to film student conservation workers. And except the Forest Service is giving supervisors discretion on your photographing activities: If you were engaged on reporting that was in support of wilderness characteristics, that would be permitted, the Forest Services acting wilderness director, Liz Close said. So if the Forest Service gets to decide who they consider to be a reporter, and decide which photographic activities they view as favorable to the Wilderness Act, then how is that not reinterpreting the first amendment? Even if they have relaxed the rule to give media carte blanche after the recent outcry, then what about the private citizen blogger? Does only a reporter from a major news source get to make a living under the protection of the first amendment regarding public lands? That is a new rule promulgated by a federal agency which diminishes your freedom. And the vagary is a further assault and insult to your freedom since as of today, no one can give any guidelines to how the $1500 rule will now be imposed and the $1000 fine ascertained. And what about my friends who like the argument that the forest service should be allowed recompense for photographic activities, whether journalistic or commercial activity, from private citizens? Once established, consider other public assets that could require expensive permits for photography: The Lincoln Memorial. The White House The Washington Memorial These pubic assets all require maintenance just like wilderness areas require maintenance. It is a different kind of maintenance but it would be the same logic: pay for a use on a public land that is yours which has nothing to do with actual conservation, unless it the picture harms the idea of what the Forest Service thinks is conservation. Consider a local example: The gold dome on top of the state captiol will be reopening next week after extensive work done in the last couple of years. How would you feel if the legislature were to follow the logic of the forest service and start charging for pictures of the gold dome? Pictures of the dome are everywhere, and it costs the people of Colorado a hefty sum for maintenance so we could recoup the money by charging $1500 for a permit for reporters (or private citizens the legislature does not recognize as reporters) that used the picture in a way that did not reflect well on Gold Dome preservation principles. We can’t allow people making money off pubic assets whose opinion doesn’t reflect well on government management of public assets, right? Plus, those in favor such ideals could argue the state could make sure that people understand and respect the importance of dome preservation, right? Pictures are ideas contained in real time frame, an expression of the moment. The expression of ideas is protected under the first amendment, *particularly speech against public policy*. Does this rule infringe your rights? Yes. Let’s fire the management and take back lands promised to the states at statehood: archive.americanlandscouncil.org/
Posted on: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 23:37:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015