Slashdot Mirror
Ferguson No-Fly Zone Revealed As Anti-Media Tactic
The AP (here, carried by the San Francisco Chronicle) reports that recorded conversations reveal flight restrictions requested in August by the police force of Ferguson, MO, and agreed to by Federal aviation safety officials, were specifically intended to limit the access of journalists to the area, rather than purely in response to safety concerns. One FAA manager in Kansas City was recorded saying police "did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR (temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didn't want media in there."
"There is really ... no option for a [Temporary Flight Restriction] that says, you know, 'OK, everybody but the media is OK,'" he said. The managers then worked out wording they felt would keep news helicopters out of the controlled zone but not impede other air traffic.
The conversations contradict claims by the St. Louis County Police Department, which responded to demonstrations following the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, that the restriction was solely for safety and had nothing to do with preventing media from witnessing the violence or the police response.
Police said at the time, and again as recently as late Friday to the AP, that they requested the flight restriction in response to shots fired at a police helicopter.
But police officials confirmed there was no damage to their helicopter and were unable to provide an incident report on the shooting. On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed "rumors."
This is illegal.
And there are probably at least a dozen. They should all do at least 20 years. They are the worst evil garbage imaginable.
Somebody should go to jail over this.
It won't happen, though.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
This is why we need to give power back to the states!
Oh, wait, that didn't work.
Give it to the feds!
Honestly? They were pretty shit too.
Hail the king!
Ehh, he really made a mess of things last time.
Power to the corporations!
No, wait, that was a complete disaster.
We could try giving it to the people again, but let's face it: they're as selfish and shortsighted as the rest.
Okay, I'm open for suggestions at this point. Horses, maybe?
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
If they knew the police were just trying to impede the media, why did they go along? Heads should roll at multiple levels.
I wonder what the legal requirements for filing these restrictions are, I know most similar documents require those filing them attest to the real reason for the request under penalty of perjury. If that's the case for these documents then someone effectively committed a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Also a quick browse of the relevant advisories in regards to Temporary Flight Restrictions does not suggest there is any allowance for "because we don't want the media to see", National security (specifically mentioning the DOD), High ranking politicians movements, Spacecraft launches, major sporting events, hijacking incidents & wildfires, but nothing about the press so I doubt that was the reason put down on the forms.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLib...
What relevance does this story have with respect to nerd news? The answer: none. Where were your other Ferguson stories??
Timothy, this is not your personal blog. Post this on your own soapbox.
This is outrageous political trolling and you should be ashamed and fired.
Nerds and geeks and general information-types are all about the free exchange of ideas. Censorship is anti-nerd.
No, what they did was disingenuous and immoral but not illegal - they really didn't want the eyes of the world judging them if they had to pull out the beanbag rounds and teargas (i.e. Everything is legal if no-one catches you doing it).
They're behaving like children when caught stealing candy or going out joyriding. They don't understand that what they're doing is wrong and they don't respond with remorse. They basically respond by trying to cover up what they're doing. Point at someone else. Choose a different time next time. Just do anything so as not to get caught. The one thing that was overlooked completely is that "maybe they shouldn't be doing that".
It's basically an upscaled version of what Right To Be Forgotten is doing, or how companies threaten lawsuits if negative reviews and bad press aren't removed from public view. None of this addresses the problem, it just makes it harder to find the truth.
Since when is a suburb allowed to declare "no-fly" zones.
Not only have we militarized local police, but it looks like we've now given them the power generally reserved for the State Department and Justice Department.
If we had an Attorney General who was worth a damn, there would be a bunch of Ferguson officials and police facing charges and civil rights suits right now. Instead, we've had an AG who was only concerned with making sure that no Wall Street banking criminal got his hair mussed.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I wouldn't call it news for nerds or stuff that matters. Many cities already ban news flights over them and have done so for years. The reasoning seems to be with police flights and reletive dangers of closeness when they respond to incidents.
No they don't. You are wrong. Cities don't have the authority to ban flights, only the FAA does. I'm a commercial pilot, airplane owner and a flight instructor, so I know what I'm talking about.
Many cities already ban news flights over them and have done so for years
I call total bullshit on this.
First of all, cities are unable to ban anything, it is the FAA that sets up no-fly zones. Second, if there are no-fly zones, they would be documented as restricted areas on sectional charts. You show me any sectional FAA approved chart that specifically forbids news flights, and I shall eat the dust from underneath your shoes.
Even NYC has most of its airspace as open (class B and C). As long as flights maintain the proper altitude (usually at least 1000ft AGL), everyone holding a private pilot's certificate can fly there.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Of course it was about the media. Photographs without on-the-ground context, for example, could spark further public demonstrations and there could be safety concerns.
That's not a good trade-off between public safety and freedom of the press, but the reasoning wasn't really a secret.
really??? now we think republicans are telling cops to execute black kids??? wtf is wrong with you?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same