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?

[countertrolling]

Yes, and don't forget the MPEG license

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[BigSlowTarget]

We don't have a permit to protest it.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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'

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

[sconeu]

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

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

[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.

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.

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.