Slashdot Mirror
NH Supreme Court To Rule On Bigfoot Video Shoot In Public Park
alphadogg writes with this excerpt from the Boston Globe: "On a whim two years ago, performance artist Jonathan Doyle paraded around the bustling peak of New Hampshire's Mount Monadnock in a $40 Bigfoot costume from iParty. He thought his deadpan video interviews with hikers describing their Bigfoot sightings would be worth a few chuckles on YouTube, and might boost the profile of his other artwork. But the staff at Monadnock State Park found the Yeti act abominable. When Doyle returned with friends to shoot a sequel, the park manger quashed the production and ordered Doyle off the mountain, insisting he needed a state permit to film a movie in the park. Bigfoot stepped up with a lawsuit, alleging that the park's permit regulations are unconstitutional. The New Hampshire Supreme Court next month will hear Doyle's complaint. Though many elements of the dispute border on the absurd, the case raises some serious free speech issues."
How about permits for potentially disruptive activities in order to maintain public order? Do you have a right to dress up as a large creature or do other deceptive things to disturb other people's enjoyment of the park?
I think this is a case of the "Big boy rules" being applied to the little guy. You can't shoot a Hollywood movie in a national park without the proper permits, that's something that no-one wants to argue. However, the park isn't going to stop a family busting out a video camera and recording their holiday hike.
I think what's going on here is a few friends are having fun and doing something that falls into the latter category, but the park is (for no reason that I can fathom) against the idea of some pranksters having a good chuckle with the park patrons - so they apply the only rules that they can find to stop this happening, the rules meant for Hollywood.
If you ask me, this smells like a case of the park being douchebags, but I can't really see too much that anyone can do. You certainly don't want the next blockbuster film crew coming in and trashing a park just because the courts ruled that Jonathan and his friends could have a laugh.
If you ask me, Jonathan should find another park that isn't so full of themselves to record his sequel. "The Yeti Migration" comes to mind as a title...
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Because restricting free speech to one particular block in the middle of Topeka would be way too easy a way of curtailing freedom of expression. And they could do the same thing for freedom of assembly or right to bear arms.
The right to free speech necessitates the ability to engage in it everywhere one can. Having these zones like at the airport is counter the purpose of having the freedom in the first place.
The question here shouldn't be whether it's commercial in nature or not. The only question is whether it is detrimental to other people using the park. It's clear why large production would be that - it's due to the sheer amount of people involved, not because of the mere act of pointing a camera somewhere.
Right, so the question is, when is commercial activity enough to require a permit? I've never been to New Hampshire, but I assume there were plenty of other people who had cameras who were fine. It was the extra stuff this guy was doing that caused the confrontation with the park rangers.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Big movies are for profit, a commercial venture.
You can shoot home movies of your children in the park, which isn't for profit, and is perfectly fine and legal.
He is trying to do something closer to home movies, as he is posting on youtube, not requiring large equipment and space, and not requiring any part of the park to be off limits. If they want to require that he first notify them (so they know to not hunt for any reporting bigfeet) and require a small fee for dealing with it, ($10 range, since entry is only $4), then I wouldn't have an issue, as the fee would be in line with the cost to them, virtually nothing. Anything more is infringing on free speech, since it wouldn't be in proportion to the "disruption" itself.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
I have no problem with permits as long as the the Parks have a "Shall Issue" rule so that you get a permit as long as you meet the minimum requirements.
How is a *STATE PARK* not considered a public place?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.