Slashdot Mirror
Forest Service Wants To Require Permits For Photography
An anonymous reader points out this story about new regulations for media who wish to take pictures or video in federally designated wilderness areas. "The U.S. Forest Service has tightened restrictions on media coverage in vast swaths of the country's wild lands, requiring reporters to pay for a permit and get permission before shooting a photo or video in federally designated wilderness areas. 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 don't get a permit could face fines up to $1,000. First Amendment advocates say the rules ignore press freedoms and are so vague they'd allow the Forest Service to grant permits only to favored reporters shooting videos for positive stories.
Anyone who has worked with them knows why they are called "The Forest Circus".
If they are trying to make even MORE enemies among the public, this is a great idea.
doesn't the public already own public land?
freedom of the press?
how about just freedom?
THL phish sticks
The next article about this at oregonlive was two days later (25th) and says the Forrest Service is delaying the decision.
Forest Service delaying media wilderness photography rules amid growing outcry about First Amendment
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But private citizens can be journalists too. That's what the bloggers keep saying. So this rule could apply to anyone who posts an illicit video on their facebook page. Especially if that person is criticizing the government, or the Forest Service in particular.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Oh yes, the only explanation must involve those evil corporations, not some over-reaching government entity full of do-gooders and tree-huggers. Those people never make stupid policies or punish the common citizens.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I guess the problem is writing the law in a way that disallows shooting commercials or movies
I don't think that's what they're targeting.
Wouldn't be surprised if the real target are environmentalists who complain about aggressive logging.
I mean seriously, why does this guy still have a job as an editor? Story after story, with distorted, inflammatory headlines or summaries, that end up being picked apart as "zomg nanny-state" baiting for the right-wing faction of the slashdot community.
These postings from samzenpus are not news for nerds, or stuff that matters. They're disingenuous advertising click-bait for a once-proud website that has let itself be co-opted by randroids.
You haven't been around much those last 13 or so years, have you?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Because you simply do NOT want to take Italy as your role model when it comes to bureaucracy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wow, this was one topic I didn't think would get Godwinned.
There's been a lot of supreme and federal court action on the right to take photographs in public.
It's just another federal bureaucracy that doesn't give a shit about the law and shakes down citizens at gun point.
So, basically, the forest service is tasked with monetizing the National Forests of the United States, not "preserve the untamed character of the country's wilderness",
Yes, exactly like the Bureau of Land Management, the greatest land grab perpetrated against the people of the United States. IN WHICH rather than homesteading, the land was declared the property of the federal government, and they monetize it by selling land-raping permits (oil, coal, fracking, timber, and cattle grazing — the latter of which is not precisely land-raping, but simply -suppressing, since a portion of that land was cleared from forest specifically for the purpose of cattle ranching, back in the late 1800s and early 1900s.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You do know, logging is only allowed in National Forests, and not National Parks, right? Just checking.
Also, go read the actual proposal. The regulations in question have been THOROUGHLY mis-reported by the media, specifically because it relates to what they do. I'm not saying I agree with what's being proposed, but you won't find an unbiased analysis in the media on this topic. They're going on the offensive on the proposals. Do yourself a favor, and see that for what it is.
They've sued us/taken us to court dozens of times over the years. It's probably cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars by now and they've never won. Not once.
We need to fire all of these extra federal employees who have nothing better to do than trump up charges and deploy swat teams and lawyers on innocent people on private property adjacent to their domain. We can offset these costs with their termination. We can fertilize the forests with their failures, and end all of their wasted paper they throw around in an effort to spare the trees. F*ckwads.
Yes, exactly like the Bureau of Land Management, the greatest land grab perpetrated against the people of the United States.
There are a bunch of Native Americans who might disagree with you, there.