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."

Comments

Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Great Big Bird]

There are two purposes I can see for a permit system: 1. It provides a framework to limit activities in the park, and 2. it can provide a source of funding for the park. I think in the case of the former, there are some activities one does not want done: such as building a structure. Other activities such as littering does not require the use of a permit, as normal laws quash that. In the case of the latter, it is entirely possible to just have an entrance fee for the park – if that is legal. Ultimately, I don't see a need for either need, as unsuitable excess will either happen rarely or can be punished/prevented through normal laws. Based on the text of the story, it seems to me that the park staff have no reason other than they don't like it. Which is not a valid reason in this context.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[excitedidiot]

They already charge $4 a person.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[mysidia]

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?

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[hedwards]

Yes, how one dresses is by and large covered by freedom of expression. There are a few limits in that you do generally need to be clothed, but it's been settled case law for years that you can legitimately wear an American flag as a shirt, I don't see why dressing like a Sasquatch would be any different.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Fluffeh]

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...

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[hedwards]

Having permits for large productions is reasonable, but from what I gather, this wasn't a large production and it didn't place any significant burden on the park officials or the park itself.

If you missed it, there's a $100 fee, 30 day waiting period and a requirement of having $2 million in coverage in case something goes wrong. Which is disproportionate to the type of enterprise that involves two people and a consumer grade camcorder.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[countertrolling]

Yes, and don't forget the MPEG license

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[fatphil]

Just your look is expression. However, how you interact with others is not. In the UK, you could be guilty of assault if your demeanor shocked people.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[robbyb20]

The way i look at it(im a photographer), is that the permit IS necessary. The argument that its a small production and like a family pulling out a video camera and nothing like a large production is that they are intentionally filming this for monetary reasons and IF they arent, how can they prove that? The 2 million policy isnt absurd at all, all parks and buildings in IL, especially chicago, require this. I have liability coverage up to 3mil and its only $600 a year. Pretty reasonable for what it covers(theft, damage, injury, TRAVEL). If youve got a crew of people, and this is going to be posted online or used anywhere for public viewing, you have to follow the rules. No ifs, ands or buts.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[migla]

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?

Where to draw the line... This is not as blatantly disruptive and dangerous as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, but maybe something akin to yelling "water" in a more sparsely populated theatre?

I'm leaning towards that it should be allowed to dress up as bigfoot. That should be the issue. Getting at it from the filming with the camcorder perspective is not nice, imo.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Dunbal]

However, the park isn't going to stop a family busting out a video camera and recording their holiday hike.

Why not? They already arrest people for dancing around national monuments in Washington DC.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[TheRealGrogan]

As a "photographer" (I assume professional) you are just trying to safe guard your livelihood and want others to have their hands tied by a bunch of rules, just like big industry that seeks to protect itself.

You have no credibility.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Pharmboy]

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.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[h00manist]

Removing all possible limits = adding all possible freedoms.

But the constitution says we *already* have all these rights. IANAL. But I'm pretty sure constitutional rights take priority over private and public property policies - especially public. That includes the needs of maintenance for the parks and profit for anyone else. I don't see how "license to shoot a movie" nowadays is different from "license to use any electronic device capable of filming - phones, camcorders, hidden mcro-cameras. Or "license to use a costume".

Unless you are shooting a movie with a huge crew, which is damaging and intefering with normal park activity, I don't see any other practical reasons to demand a "licence to shoot a movie".

What I want is a nice camera hidden in my baseball cap.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[KhazadDum]

Well, one should always "follow the money."

A corollary to that is "Look at those who have to pay -- they'll most want to use you as a load balancer for their costs".

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[sjames]

Perhaps it's akin to yelling "movie" in a fire house.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[FauxReal]

Try busting out a video camera anywhere in LA these days. A kid filming himself skateboarding will get chased off without a permit.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[kilodelta]

The problem is, if Jonathan and his friends are successful that is precisely what will happen. The state legislators are going to do doublt time to craft a law that preserves the rights of the citizen, while limiting the access of another citizen namely the corporations.

Yes I know already, corporation as citizens is a legal fiction and that little problem needs to be solved post haste.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[russotto]

I think this is a case of the "Big boy rules" being applied to the little guy

The point of the "big boy rules" is to ensure the little guy doesn't get a chance.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[cyn1c77]

There are two purposes I can see for a permit system:

1. It provides a framework to limit activities in the park, and
2. it can provide a source of funding for the park.

I think in the case of the former, there are some activities one does not want done: such as building a structure. Other activities such as littering does not require the use of a permit, as normal laws quash that.

In the case of the latter, it is entirely possible to just have an entrance fee for the park – if that is legal.

Ultimately, I don't see a need for either need, as unsuitable excess will either happen rarely or can be punished/prevented through normal laws.

Based on the text of the story, it seems to me that the park staff have no reason other than they don't like it. Which is not a valid reason in this context.

Maybe the park doesn't want a big monster running around scaring the public?

What if I dress up as a grizzly bear and try to scare the shit out of you during a nice family picnic? What if you shoot me to defend yourself and I sue the park service?

People go to state and federal parks to get away from civilization and to enjoy nature, not to get harassed by wanna-be actors.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[MorePower]

If that's true though, then there should be no talk about permits. If "Bigfoot's" activities actually constitute harassment or if there is a legitimate public safety issue, then the Park should be flat out saying "no you can't do that".

By making it a "you don't have a permit" issue, it really smacks of the park rangers don't like it, but it hasn't actually crossed the line.

I mean, are they saying you CAN harass/endanger people as long as you do get a permit?

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[hedwards]

Wow, nice trolling there. The Sasquatch doesn't exist, it's been pretty reliably proven that Sasquatch doesn't exist, there are limitations to what one can be held liable for. And ultimately, pretending to be a mythical animal is hardly grounds for fraud charges whether or not there's been any commercial gain. Now, if they're claiming to have a Sasquatch and try to sell it that's different. But ultimately, if people are so stupid as to be afraid of a Sasquatch that you're filming, that's hardly the responsibility or the fault of the people involved.

We don't generally place limits on free speech based upon how a few cretins react to it, unless they happen to be on the Supreme Court.

In this case it's at most a hoax, and even that is stretching the definition quite a bit.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Doc Ruby]

Why can't a Hollywood movie be shot in a national park without permits? As long as the shoot isn't damaging the park, or interfering with other people's use of it (any more than those people's use interferes with anyone else's), what is the good reason to interfere with an American doing whatever they want in their park? Nobody's saying that anyone has the right to trash a public park, regardless of whether they're recording something or not.

There is a valid basis for the public perhaps charging a royalty fee from revenue gained from any recording made in the park. Maybe 1% of gross receipts * the percentage of the release's duration (or area for non-time recordings like pictures) containing recordings of the park, with a cap at the annual budget of the park the year it was recorded.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Doc Ruby]

Why can't the park just monitor any activity of any size that might damage the park, and prohibit that? What's recording the park got to do with anything that needs stopping?

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Doc Ruby]

No, you don't have a right to disturb other people's enjoyment of the park. But dressing up in a bigfoot costume while your friends shoot pictures of you acting out scenes with another friend doesn't disturb other people's enjoyment. Any more than a similar number of people building a fire and playing ukeleles might disturb those bigfoot actors' enjoyment.

These people each have the same right to enjoying the park. It's big enough for them all to share. That one group is recording it, for home movies, nonprofit Internet publication, or major theatrical release and hundreds of $millions in profit is totally irrelevant. It's up to you what you make of your day in the park, so long as you don't take someone else's day.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[MaskedSlacker]

Good thing this is taking place in a sane country where shocking people is not, never has been a crime.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Doc Ruby]

If these people actually tried to convince some unwitting park goers that they were a bigfoot attacking them, that would be assault, not fraud. There are plenty of laws protecting people from assault, in a park or not.

If you go down the street with a sock over your head and a baseball bat in your hand, but you don't threaten anyone, you are not liable to be arrested for disorderly conduct. Except maybe in some crazy police state town, which the US has plenty of. Which doesn't make the charge legit. Plenty of people are arrested for disorderly conduct for no reason except the cops or some local idiot dislikes their race, or their age, or their perceived political affiliation. It's a BS charge, and defending it is BS.

Speech is free beyond merely communication of a message. You're free to persuade people with speech so long as you don't lie or intimidate harm. The limits actually stand beyond even persuasion, into argument and more.

In fact, you're making statements of legal certainty that are obviously wrong. You should stop doing exactly what you exaggerate in this discussion: telling a lie or deception that harms people, by convincing them they're less free than they are.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Isaac Remuant]

Fun fact is that, those arrested were charged with "Demonstrating without a permit".

I still can't believe there such thing as a protesting permit and that so many people are fine with it.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[catmistake]

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.

I absolutely think everyone WOULD want the next blockbuster film crew coming in and... throwing money around like they usually do. Big movie productions have big money, and they spread it around wherever they work. Best thing that could possibly ever happen to that park, or any park, is the next big blockbuster gets shot there. They'll pay several times the going rate for the cleanup. Maybe they'll even build a nice, luxurious lodge for the film, and then just give it to the park when their done. That's how Hollywood rolls.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right up until Bush was shocked that people were protesting him, and required them to be moved away and have a protesting permit.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[SomePgmr]

Absolutely agree.

Though situations like this always amaze me. It took an odd combination of events, a goofball in a bigfoot outfit making youtube videos and some seemingly overprotective rangers to make this an issue.

So now we have court hearings and think, "Ok, we need rules that protect people who want to shoot videos, without letting things get out of control." And those rules will have to be uncomfortably specific, defining amounts of support gear or facilities that determine if it's a "big" or "small" production, commercial or non-commercial, areas that are always off limits, sectioning off spots for filming or not, the appropriate fee schedule, caring for the grounds afterwards, park staff on hand, etc.

But it gets really funny when, a year from now, folks are screaming when they discover there are 10 pages of regulations, fees, lengthy application processes and general aggravation over trying to just shoot a stupid youtube video in the park. Local news talks about the absurdity of the whole thing, the parks work to "clarify the process", and all along, we all laugh about the ridiculous inefficiencies of bureaucracies... even at the park. ;)

On to the next one!

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Calydor]

So it really boils down to what you find most important - the right to protest what you feel needs to be protested, or the convenience of getting to work easily.

As someone far more eloquent than I once said, "I disapprove of what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[TheRealGrogan]

I said that, because as a professional photographer you might have a vested interest in seeing others having to follow the same rules that you do. (Not necessarily maliciously, but it may affect your opinion on the matter). I see it in all trades. For example, in my area, you don't need to have a business permit of any kind to work out of your house. That makes shopkeepers angry, so they do things like rat you out for not following whatever rules they think you are breaking. (whether you are or not, the damage is done... you'll get audited and have to put up with reams of horseshit and you'll never get that time back and the wear and tear on your nerves). Another example... farmers were donating eggs and stuff to soup kitchens. People in the industry complain, because they aren't going through the marketing boards and nobody is making their touch. Farmers are allowed to SELL eggs and some other food items privately, but because of the lobbying, (in the name of health and safety officially but that isn't the problem, it's the money) the food has to be purchased through proper channels. In the building trades, union people make a big stink about the little guys and they get visits from inspectors to make sure everyone has the proper tickets. The list goes on.

It was probably unfair of me to label you so, on the basis of what you said... it's just a sore spot lately.

My thoughts are that this is a home video. There is no reason for park staff to pull a heavy over it. I don't tolerate that kind of small minded authority where I live, and neither should Americans. You should not need millions of dollars in liability insurance to use a camcorder at a park.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[1u3hr]

Why can't a Hollywood movie be shot in a national park without permits? As long as the shoot isn't damaging the park, or interfering with other people's use of it

Have you ever seen a Hollywood movie shooting on location? Hundreds of crew, trucks, generators, lights, etc, etc.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Plunky]

Have you ever seen a Hollywood movie shooting on location? Hundreds of crew, trucks, generators, lights, etc, etc.

Right, so its a National Park and that stuff isn't allowed, so they need a permit to get trucks, trailers and generators on site, and an exclusion zone set up because you can't have members of the public wandering across your set.. The permit then is not for the filming, but for the inconvenience they are creating to other park users, and to the costs they are incurring to the park wardens who need to coordinate such activity.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Aighearach]

there are some activities one does not want done: such as building a structure.

Right, so with the permit system you have the legislative branch setting up a framework by which the executive branch can exert day-to-day control over what activities are permitted in the park.

If somebody doesn't like the way the executive is deciding that, unless it involves some sort of protected status then any recourse is going to have to go back through the legislature. The court isn't going to step in and decide this over both other branches.

The fact is, they didn't tell him not to dress up in an ape suit and talk to hikers. All they told him not to do was film a movie without a permit. Movies can be very disruptive to areas they film in. They absolutely need to be covered by a permit process and receive some oversight. That is the case in most places.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[tehcyder]

Having the right to protest does not mean having the right to physically block people from doing something like getting to work. Anyone who tries that should be arrested for obstruction.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[fatphil]

The legal systems share a significant common heritage. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault#United_States you did at least at some point have a very similar common law definition for assault (feeling under threat was basically enough). And even if you've redefined assault to mean something else, that doesn't mean that there isn't a similar offence under another name.

Quickly checking with my g/f, who did study US law, the name of that offence is indeed "assault", but she was at university a while ago, and it might be state-dependent.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[fatphil]

Please read the wikipedia page on 'assault' before spouting nonsense.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, there is a way to limit the "blockbuster" movies without limiting guys like this. You can make the rules so that someone can film to their hearts content as long as neither their equipment nor production crews obstruct others in those others' use of the park. If you are filming something where you need to limit other people entering into the area where you are filming, then you need a permit. If the Court is wise they will craft a ruling which says this, while throwing out the existing rules/laws and tossing it to the legislature to write a law which follows such a reading of the Constitution.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Dunbal]

Nah that used to be said when I was a kid. Now it's "I disapprove of what you say and you had better be quiet or you'll get in trouble". Only one step away from "I disapprove of what you say and I am turning you in".

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Dunbal]

does not mean having the right to physically block people from doing something like getting to work.

Let me introduce you to the concept of the picket line - recognized by law. Of course a protest is not the same thing, but it's the same general idea.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Ihmhi]

Is... is this the start of the Bigfoot Defense? Right up there with the Chewbacca Defense...

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Registered Coward v2]

does not mean having the right to physically block people from doing something like getting to work.

Let me introduce you to the concept of the picket line - recognized by law. Of course a protest is not the same thing, but it's the same general idea.

UH - you can cross a picket line. Every one I've seen has allowed access to the place being picketed, in the US at least.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[BigSlowTarget]

We don't have a permit to protest it.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[sauge]

+1 - Bureaucratic Barrier of Entry exists in all industries.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Dunbal]

You can cross a "protest" too. It's just a pain in the ass, takes time, and you'll probably get yelled at. Like crossing a picket line.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[sunking2]

Except for the 'boost the profile of his other artwork' part. There is little doubt that he is doing this to partly help his career, whatever that may be. This is simply another example of a society that is unwilling to apply a little common sense when enforcing rules.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Pharmboy]

Picket lines are allows to exist as long as they don't obstruct. Once they obstruct, they are a violation of law.

You have the right to protest. You don't have the right to infringe upon MY rights when doing so, ie: free access to public roads and such.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

You're forgetting that logic and politics are totally immiscible...

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

are they saying you CAN harass/endanger people as long as you do get a permit?

If that's the case, I'm definitely getting a permit.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Doc Ruby]

What are the politics here? Park rangers are petty tyrants in their little empire?

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[datavirtue]

Have you ever seen a Hollywood movie shooting on location? Hundreds of crew, trucks, generators, lights, etc, etc.

...and the air lifted cappuccino machine...Don't forget that every Wednesday is cake day, and the leopard cage.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Xeno man]

But my project doesn't have more than 5 people. There are 10 projects here that just have 5 people in each group. It's not my fault that some people in each group know and talk to each other.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[SomePgmr]

Who knew I had a future in law...

"Ask yourself, does this make any sense?"

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Doc Ruby]

Depends on how he's interviewing them. If he's just walking up to them like anyone else would in the park, and leaves them alone if they ignore him or tell him to go away, what's the point of a permit? If he's bearing down on them with lights and a big crew, that's the kind of non-park activity that might require a permit. If he's chasing them with a guy in a bigfoot suit shouting questions at them, no permit should be allowed for that.

The point is that the recording is not a legitimate basis for a permit requirement. The park should protect people from getting hassled. But not from other people in the park talking to them. Your right to enjoyment of a public space doesn't include a right for other people not to exist.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[fatphil]

"My thoughts are that this is a home video."

Not if the intention was to broadcast it worldwide.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I still can't believe there such thing as a protesting permit and that so many people are fine with it.

Speech permits were the inevitable consequence of weapons permits. Next up may be religion permits. The TSA is already implementing permits to avoid unreasonable searches. Due process permits skipped right from crazy to unavailable (to some when chosen to be boogeymen).

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[cyn1c77]

If that's true though, then there should be no talk about permits. If "Bigfoot's" activities actually constitute harassment or if there is a legitimate public safety issue, then the Park should be flat out saying "no you can't do that".

By making it a "you don't have a permit" issue, it really smacks of the park rangers don't like it, but it hasn't actually crossed the line.

I mean, are they saying you CAN harass/endanger people as long as you do get a permit?

Pretty much. It's called getting a permit for a public demonstration.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[mysidia]

Speech is free beyond merely communication of a message. You're free to persuade people with speech so long as you don't lie or intimidate harm.

Actually, you're not totally free to persuade people with speech in most situations. You might assume that from a reading of the constitution, but it's simply not implemented that way anymore.
Only certain kinds of speech have been deemed protected by the courts in the US.

One kind of speech that's not protected is speech for a commercial purpose, for example, speech for the purpose of gaining a profit; a category that 'pretending to be' someone else to shoot a movie for profit may fall under, this situation of commercial speech. Some examples of cases where that kind of speech has been specifically prohibited: blackmail.... "be persuaded of such and such" or I publish 'such and such' about you, publish negative things about a competitor you can't prove to promote your business, defamation, subliminal advertising bans, "truth in advertising" laws, product labelling rules, surgeon generals warnings, prohibition of use of television to advertise cigarettes, the list goes on and on.

There are plenty of types of speech that are illegal, but don't harm anyone.

There are plenty of types of speech that do harm but are legal, and corporations can lie all day, as long as they don't lie in the wrong venue about the wrong kind of things; newspapers can publish false articles, perfectly legal, if they are cautious.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Doc Ruby]

Some speech for gaining profit is now protected, cf Citizens United.

Blackmail is not protected because it's speech that intimidates harm.

But recording the park is not harming anyone in the park, independent of what's being recorded. Your acts of speaking to (or at) people in the park might or might not be protected. But there's no public interest in stopping you from recording, or from later distributing what you recorded. The free speech in your recording/playback is protected speech.

This is huge.

[MarkvW]

If the government wins on this one, they'll get support for making the same arguments about filming on the public highways or public sidewalks.

 

Re:This is huge.

[phantomfive]

It's not really the same, that kind of thing is already illegal.....if you get on a freeway with your camera gear and block traffic for three hours while you film something, then yeah, the police are going to come bother you (you could probably do it anyway if you have a permit, much like this guy could if he had a permit).

The purpose of the regulation is mentioned in the article:

The permit regulations are for “mitigating the impacts of commercial events’’ in state parks, and “protecting visitors from unwelcome or unwarranted interference, annoyance, or danger,’’ among other considerations, the state wrote in its brief.

Do you really want a Geico lizard harassing you while you are hiking around Yellowstone? Probably not. What this guy was doing could be interpreted as shameless self-promotion and harassing people.

I don't know if he was harassing people or not. I wasn't there, and the article doesn't give much info. Maybe he was, maybe the permit requirements are reasonable, the court needs to decide that.

The point is, even if the court lets this stand, it's can't be used as a precedent to limit us any more than we already are (and really, I don't want people blocking traffic on the freeway for their pet youtube videos).

Re:This is huge.

[dbcad7]

Actually.. this is a state park.. requires a fee to enter.. Given that, I am inclined to agree those that have paid to enter should expect some policing.. In my mind, requiring a fee changes it's status from public access to private paid access.. The issue here is not about filming in a public place.. in fact I am certain they could have filmed all day long.. even in a Bigfoot suit.. the issue was whether the filming was harassing other guests.. Let's say they did the same thing even without filming it.. or let's say they (without their Bigfoot suit) just hid behind trees on a trail and jumped out to scare people to see their reaction.. In either case film or no film, you would expect them to be kicked out.. It was nice of them to state their intent before doing it.. and reasonable of the park to refuse to let them.

Re:This is huge.

[shutdown -p now]

if you get on a freeway with your camera gear and block traffic for three hours while you film something, then yeah, the police are going to come bother you/quote.

Yes, but they'll do so because you're blocking traffic, not because you use a camera while doing so.

Re:This is huge.

[adenied]

Except that most jurisdictions do require a permit to film for commercial purposes.

Re:This is huge.

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:This is huge.

[hedwards]

That's typically because of the disruption. Things like closing down roads and the ensuring that there's adequate security, not to mention just the matter of ensuring that the film crew is in contact with the relevant department. Most cities want to have film crews come to their city and permitting is a way of reducing the possibility of mishaps or miscommunications happening.

Just shooting next to a major street or in a park typically necessitates that the public not use the right of way for a period in time. I remember a couple years back the local park was closed for a week end for a film crew.

Re:This is huge.

[sjames]

And that's the crux of it. For some reason, the park officials taking the rules for the sort of production that involves a few million in professional gear, a small army of people and several trucks and applying them to two guys and a consumer camcorder.

Re:This is huge.

[SydShamino]

Isn't New Hampshire the state where all the libertarians wanted to move, so as to create something akin to their utopia? Did enough move there to influence the state legislature? No?

Re:This is huge.

[Doc Ruby]

Or voting. Or suing.

But you gun fetishists are always waving around your guns - in words. When your actual rights were stolen for the last decade and more, you just waved your gun words around defending the thieves. You're never going to defend your rights with guns. By the time you did, the highly armed police state you rooted for will just take them away from you. Probably prying them from your cold, dead hands.

Re:This is huge.

[Doc Ruby]

Why does a fee charged by the government, representing the public that owns the park, change the status from public access to private access?

The issue is clearly the filming. The park police aren't charging these people with assault or any other act except filming without a permit. By definition the issue is the filming.

Re:This is huge.

[phantomfive]

You don't have a right to not be annoyed, but you don't have a right to annoy people either. This being a democracy, when enough people get together and decide something is too annoying and shouldn't be allowed, we make a law against it.

Living with a few people in a family is hard. Living with a lot of people in a country is really hard. Democracy is the way we've decided to do it, but sometimes people don't get what they want.

Re:This is huge.

[NatasRevol]

Ummm, I'm going to have to go with "not yet".

Re:This is huge.

[dbcad7]

They are not charging them with anything.. they have prevented access that would harass other guests and asked him to get a permit to film.. which would probably be denied based on intent to harass other visitors to the park.

Re:This is huge.

[Doc Ruby]

Harass? No. And a film permit isn't the permit that prohibits harassment.

You're just siding with the man.

My name is Jacob Stein. I'm from the American Fede

[Anonymous Coward]

My name is Jacob Stein. I'm from the American Federation of Music. I've been sent to see if you gentlemen are carrying your permits.

Great Moments in American Journalism

[TheABomb]

"I am maintaining the integrity of being real" (TFA quote) is exactly what Bigfoot needs to be telling more reporters.

Re:Great Moments in American Journalism

[jd]

Well, it's better than Bigfoot telling reporters that he's quaternion.

It's all pretty silly

[RazorSharp]

I understand needing a permit if lots of heavy equipment needs to be dragged in and set up - like when they lay track to follow something with the camera - but to prohibit a person from using just video cameras is absurd. Shooting a movie shouldn't be an issue unless it could have an effect on the ecosystem or would require some form of construction.

A lot of times a policy is set up with good intentions but isn't specific enough so it's used as an excuse for something else. This is a good example of that. So is the U.S. Constitution.

Re:It's all pretty silly

[jd]

Shooting a movie shouldn't be an issue unless it could have an effect on the ecosystem or would require some form of construction.

I certainly agree there, though there are times when that would apply to a regular person using a video camera - there are plenty of extremely fragile ecosystems. However, in the case where an ecosystem is that fragile, conservation laws aught to be in effect and permits shouldn't exist. If there are permits, then the ecosystem is declared as not being fragile since the authorities are claiming that there can be cases when large film crews, support trucks, lighting and the inevitable trash that results are perfectly acceptable.

So either NH is confessing to being incompetent at conservation or it's abusing the permit system. It can't not be one of those, but in the interests of fairness we shouldn't assume it's the latter. After all, the scientific method suggests we should not blame on malice that which can be explained equally well by stupidity (the simpler, and more common, cause).

Re:It's all pretty silly

[Tacvek]

You forgot one case, which is when the production prevents or places significant limits on the use of the area by other people. If doing filming that will effectively block a road (even if it is just people standing in the street) then a permit should be required. Similarly if no construction occurred, but the production consisted of a large number of people, making a section of the park too crowed for other people.

This production has minimal impact on others using the park, so it case also would not apply.

Free speech?

[ToasterMonkey]

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."

What does filming location have to do with free speech?

Re:Free speech?

[hedwards]

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.

Re:Free speech?

[spire3661]

State owned land, restrictions on expression, you do the math. Speech isn't just 'speech'

everyone is now a movie maker

[RichMan]

If there is a ban on film making everyone with a cellphone or camera is going to have to leave them behind.
Pretty much everyone walking around these days is capable of making a movie. Just take out your cell phone and ....

The law as written needs revising for current technology. His monkey suit video is really no different than everyones "I am here" holiday video that gets posted onto facebook.

This is not a moral battle but a legal one

[Hentes]

They can either film in the park without permission or not, but that has nothing to do with free speech.

Re:This is not a moral battle but a legal one

[outsider007]

It is if they stopped him based on content. The article wasn't too clear on that.

Re:This is not a moral battle but a legal one

[hedwards]

That's not how that has been interpreted in the past. Speech isn't just literal speech, it applies to other creative means of communication. You're free to communicate whatever you want to communicate in the US unless the communication involves a very small number of illegal activities such as fraud or libel, otherwise the state can't interfere. In this case, I can't imagine what compelling interest that state could possibly have that would necessitate them from putting prohibitive strings on permission for 2 or 3 people to film in a park.

In this case, filming isn't any different than standing on a soap box in the park, something else that isn't literally speech, but is pretty damn important if you're going to have freedom of speech that's of any value.

Re:This is not a moral battle but a legal one

[Hentes]

This isn't about what he did but that he did it in a place that may not be considered as public. Also, I don't see how filming is a form of communication, as communication requires two parties that communicate with each other, and in this case there is no second party, nor any transfer of data going on. This is not speech.

Re:This is not a moral battle but a legal one

[sconeu]

How is a *STATE PARK* not considered a public place?

Re:This is not a moral battle but a legal one

[hedwards]

The previous episode was taped, and subsequently was posted to Youtube. Free speech isn't limited to areas of the country with internet access. By your logic the government could prevent a person from doing a political ad because it wasn't being broadcast live.

Re:This is not a moral battle but a legal one

[Hentes]

If they are filming it in a park then yeah, it could be blocked. You seem to confuse the making of data with the communication of the data. If Youtube were asked to block the videos, that would be free speech violation.

permits sometimes needed in national parks

[NaturePhotog]

I don't know about the NH state parks, but the National Park Service spells out pretty clearly when permits are needed, under the general category "Commercial Filming and Still Photography Permits". Basically if it's a location not normally accessible to the public; you bring in models, sets or props; or the park service would need additional resources to monitor the activity. He's bringing in a costume, and he's doing it to advertise his other artwork, so it would probably require a permit in a national park. But small scale, there are no onerous fees: 1 - 2 people, camera & tripod only $0/day. The system is set up to keep advertisers and corporations from abusing the parks for their own uses. In the article, it sounds pretty similar for the NH state parks, except the fee is $100/day. As a photographer (who spends time in CA state parks and national parks), it doesn't sound to me like a question of free speech because they didn't deny him access, they just told him to follow the existing rules and get a necessary permit.

Re:permits sometimes needed in national parks

[jroysdon]

I'm guessing getting a $2M insurance bond wouldn't be terribly expensive either. Not that they are one-in-the-same, but a $2M Professional Liability policy only ran me $312/year for a number of years. He only needs it to be good for a day, so I'm betting it wouldn't be more than a few hundred, if that.

Save up the money and do it right and follow all the rules, or go home and film it. Just because it is a public park doesn't mean it is a free ride for your own promotional videos. Further, what if every high school and junior college wants to start filming in the park? No real problem, except they need to be policed and insure they are cleaning up, etc., and that costs money, which is why the rules are there in the first place.

Re:permits sometimes needed in national parks

[flimflammer]

The $100 fee is misleading. He would also need to take out a $2 million insurance bond which would have cost him several hundred dollars more on top of it. They may not have physically denied him access by telling him to get the permit, but the price tag for entry was prohibitively high when all is said and done and that's the problem. They seemed to apply the permit tied to bigger things to this guy in a costume with a consumer grade camera.

The way I've read into this seems to imply they just didn't like what he was doing the first time and hid behind the permit business this time as a way to make him go away. I don't think I'd spend $700/800+ just to film some Bigfoot footage for YouTube.

Re:permits sometimes needed in national parks

[hedwards]

That's a lot of money for most folks, especially when you consider that it's likely that the insurance and permitting is going to cost more than the rest of the things being used for the production.

Re:permits sometimes needed in national parks

[Bob9113]

A concise explanation of the gray area, with citation of the national park service standard that clearly resulted from significant consideration of how to balance the regulation. An outstanding post. Thanks!

Re:permits sometimes needed in national parks

[imakemusic]

That "land of the free" thing's really taken a back seat.

Re:permits sometimes needed in national parks

[Hatta]

They may not have physically denied him access by telling him to get the permit, but the price tag for entry was prohibitively high when all is said and done and that's the problem.

And that's why he'll lose the case. In America you only have rights if you can afford to exercise them. Freedom of the press goes only to those who can afford a press.

Re:permits sometimes needed in national parks

[tbannist]

If it's commercial activity, $600 is a small expense, he should be expecting to get more than that in additional sales.

Nature and Wilderness

[qualityassurancedept]

Of course, in the wilderness, where there is no Human Authority prevailing, you can do whatever you want. Unfortunately, Nature is not the same thing as wilderness. It would be unfortunate if people were allowed to sully Nature with wild activities like walking around in bigfoot costumes. Had he and his friends chosen to walk around new york city dressed up in big foot costumes, no one would have even noted it.

Eh...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Frankly, this only seems like an "important free speech issue" in one respect: the (quite likely) possibility that the park management are using selective enforcement of (possibly outdated) regulations against people who merely annoy them.

The notion that certain things that incidentally happen to be speech can be curtailed or limited because they are also hazardous or deeply disruptive has been more or less unproblematic as long as the notion of freedom of speech has been a matter of political possibility. However, such limitations do offer a potentially hazardous temptation for anti-speech selective enforcement(Is running around a dense residential district at 3am and shouting your head off legitimately "disturbance of the peace"? Yeah. Does that mean that it would be OK for police to ignore some disturbers of the peace and arrest those who say unpopular things? Not So Much.)

If this case turns out to be the park staff using a permitting system written back when cameras were barely man-portable and 'filming' implied a trail of havoc to selectively quash the weirdos while ignoring That Vacationing Camcorder Asshole, whose life only has meaning if they glimpse it continuously through a viewfinder, they need a smacking down.
If it turns out that the permit requirements are applied uniformly, then it becomes the much less weighty question of whether or not the decreasing size and disruptiveness of cameras makes them due for a rewrite or not...

Permits are OK if they are "Shall Issue"

[nicoleb_x]

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.

Re:Permits are OK if they are "Shall Issue"

[tftp]

as long as you meet the minimum requirements.

"Our minimum requirement today is $17,252.06 - how you are going to pay, cash or credit card?"

yes, it is ok.

[the_fat_kid]

then it would be free speech.
It would be distasteful, to most people, but that is why it's PROTECTED.
and are we really worried about a terrorist attack from Bigfoot?
it's a f*cking costume. you know, like the little kids wear to go house to house demanding candy.
just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not art.
Just because you're not laughing doesn't mean it's not funny.

Re:Live Free...

[the_fat_kid]

I think that the Park's department is hoping that they will take the latter choice...

ACLU thrilled fighting for Bigfoot's free speech

[leftie]

ACLU has to get discouraged being stuck defending the rights of assholes like Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist screaming hate at gay soldiers' funerals. Fighting for Bigfoot going to be like a fun frolic in the woods for them.

Re:A public nuisance issue

[0111 1110]

What if someone dressed up like a monkey and went to a Halloween party? You would advocate putting them in prison? So you want to outlaw Halloween and any sort of costumes. Could you and all of your like minded friends please move to North Korea where you belong?

Scaring someone is not against the law, and for good reason. Who would get to decide what is 'scary' and what is not anyway? You? Are black people scary? People with facial burns? Ugly people in general? The Commandant of the Ministry of Fear may have different ideas about what is scary than you do. I have an idea. Why don't we just make it illegal to be afraid? Nip the problem in the bud.

It seems simple.

[BenJCarter]

If a lawful activity is having no impact on a public facility, the public facility has no standing against that lawful activity. That's how I read the Constitution anyway.

As a NH resident who hikes Monadnock frequently

[ppetrakis]

I would get annoyed if people regularly used the summit area to goof
off with video cameras or any other tech for that matter. Even talking on
a cell phone up there will net you many dirty looks. Mt. Monadnock is
one of the most frequently scaled mountains in the world, it can get
crowded up there. Were folks to make putting on little shows like this
on a regular basis it would get old real fast and spoil the natural beauty
of the area.

The licensing proposed wasn't punitive to the point where the average
person couldn't meet the burden. When I'm out there, it's to enjoy nature,
and not be the subject of every film student or bored hippee trying to score hits
on youtube or drum up publicity for their business.

The licensing is meant to curb the frequency of these events and
keep the state park focused on it's primary goals. It is *not* a
general use area, you can't even camp or start a fire on the
mountain.

Peter

Yes they are necissary in general

[pavon]

Permits are necessary for many things. The purpose of the park system is to preserve land for the enjoyment of people, however different people would like to enjoy it in ways that are not compatible. That doesn't mean that all these activities can't be supported, it just means that they can't all happen at the same place and/or time. People who want to enjoy peace and quiet in the forest will be disturbed by people riding ATVs, or a huge film crew. People who want to swim in a lake and those who want to fish in it will have to do so in different parts of the lake. People who want to fish/hunt will ruin things for others if too many of them are allowed to do so (or not enough if there is a lack of natural predators).

The entire premise of the park system is to restrict what people do with the land. Sometimes this can be handled with static rules, other times the restrictions only need to be temporal in nature; you can take you big film crew out there, but need let the park service know when/where in advance to let people know to avoid that area. You can hold a big event, but only in areas that will not be damaged by the additional impact, and when no-one else is using the area. In both cases, the organizer either needs to agree in advance to pay all fines incurred by the group, or pay a nominal fee since more policing of the area will be necessary. In situations where there is history of abuse, requiring a refundable security-deposit or insurance bond might be entirely appropriate.

In this case, it does sound like the park administrators are abusing permits intended for large crews by applying it to individuals, but that doesn't mean that permits are never needed.

Really

[g0bshiTe]

I thought you had to have a permit to film in public anyway, short of a home video of course.

While it appears NH doesn't require a permit to film, you do need to apply to film on state property. http://www.nh.gov/film/faq.htm

Looks like Bigfoot is in the wrong.

Re:Bigfoot != Yeti

[Changa_MC]

Bigfeet are not yetis. Conflating the two just to shoe-horn the word 'abominable' into the text is lame.

My experience with your mom last night would indicate otherwise.