Drone Pilot Arrested After Flying Over Two Stadiums, Dropping Leaflets (cbslocal.com)

"A man with an anti-media agenda was arrested in Oakland after he flew a drone over two different stadiums to drop leaflets" last Sunday, writes Slashdot reader execthis. A local CBS station reports: According to investigators, [55-year-old Tracy] Mapes piloted his drone over Levi's Stadium during the second quarter of the 49ers-Seattle game and released a load of pamphlets. He then quickly landed the drone, loaded it up and drove over to Oakland. He flew a similar mission over the Raiders-Broncos game. Santa Clara Police Lt. Dan Moreno said after Mapes was apprehended he defended the illegal action as a form of free speech.
USA Today reports there's now also an ongoing federal investigation "because the Federal Aviation Administration prohibits the flying of drones within five miles of an airport. Both Levi's Stadium and Oakland Coliseum are within that range."

"The San Francisco Chronicle added that the drone was a relatively ineffective messenger because 'most of the drone-dropped leaflets were carried away by the wind.'"

Comments

Free speech does not exclude laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you can have free speech but you cannot break laws in expressing that. Are people really this stupid these days?

Re:Free speech does not exclude laws

[CaptainDork]

That phrase does not mean what you think it does.

It means that you can't be arrested for talking trash about the government.

Re:Free speech does not exclude laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming that AC and you are both referring to the First Amendment to the US Constitution (and that you are not being snarky), AC is closer to correct than you.

Re:Free speech does not exclude laws

[TimSSG]

Yes you can have free speech but you cannot break laws in expressing that. Are people really this stupid these days?

I think freedom of the press would be more on target; but, you still can be arrested for breaking the law while using the freedom of the press. Tim S.

Re:Free speech does not exclude laws

[ShanghaiBill]

But would he have been arrested for flying the drone if he had not dropped leaflets? It is likely that hundreds of people fly drones within 5 miles of SFO or OAK everyday. How many of them are arrested? Selective enforcement of the law can be a form of oppression.

Re: Free speech does not exclude laws

[Corbets]

Youâ(TM)re absolutely right. Ideally weâ(TM)d arrest all drone operators and string em up, but until weâ(TM)re able to do that, weâ(TM)ll have to settle for selective enforcement.

Re:Free speech does not exclude laws

[PopeRatzo]

It means that you can't be arrested for talking trash about the government.

No, it doesn't. It means government can't make any laws that would prevent you from exercising free speech.

But free speech doesn't mean you get to break other laws while exercising your free speech.

Re:Free speech does not exclude laws

[Aighearach]

"Selective enforcement" can be a form of oppression, but when they are "selectively" doing enforcement against the people whose crime attracts the most attention, then it isn't. It just means he was an idiot for brazenly doing something that you have to do quietly to get away with.

Re: Free speech does not exclude laws

[PopeRatzo]

So they can make laws that prevent you from making free speech as long as they say it's for something else.

No. Let me put it in terms you can understand. Think of it like this. You can hire a big truck with a sign on it that says, "Whites are Superior". That's legal. But if you run that truck over a bunch of mud people, you have broken the law, even though you were exercising your free speech at the time. Just because you were in the act of exercising free speech doesn't mean you can break the law.

Re: Free speech does not exclude laws

[Cederic]

What are mud people? Are they the Louisiana alternative to a snowmen, because they're short on snow but have lots of mud?

I agree, running over the figures created by children is cruel, but is it against the law? Maybe vandalism?

Re: Free speech does not exclude laws

[Highdude702]

That's racist. The reason why is because you simply could have said "Think of it like this. You can hire a big truck with a sign on it that says, "Whites are Superior". That's legal. But if you run that truck over a bunch of people". Unfortunately you chose to let your true colors show. You've been doing that a lot lately, yet you're the same person that yells "racist" at anybody that disagrees with you. This is why you people keep losing traction.

Re:Free speech does not exclude laws

[squiggleslash]

That's not the question. The question is would he have been arrested had he dropped blank leaflets, or leaflets expressing an opinion opposite to that expressed, or leaflets discussing the moderation system of Slashdot.

My guess is yes. Dropping leaflets would appear to be problematic for all kinds of reasons, and I suspect many of those reasons overlap with overt prohibitions in codes the FAA enforces.

Re: Free speech does not exclude laws

[rtb61]

Would you prefer mud monkey as in ie earth primate. From a galactic point of view you could be racist against all humans, let's not be bigoted, OK (not a white power sign on earth or any other planet in the galaxy).

Typical examples of free speech that is most emphatically illegal, fraud and in the US where money is speech, trying to hire an assassin. Free speech is really the right to freely express your opinion and not an open right to make false claim of fact or to actively incite conflict or in a democracy deny the public the right to all facts that could affect their vote ie it is illegal for government to corruptly use tax payer money to keep secrets from that taxpayer that would affect their vote, that would be an electoral crime (censorship is speech, your speech silencing others, one must censor the censors in order to maintain the free opinions of others).

Re:Free speech does not exclude laws

[tlhIngan]

But would he have been arrested for flying the drone if he had not dropped leaflets? It is likely that hundreds of people fly drones within 5 miles of SFO or OAK everyday. How many of them are arrested? Selective enforcement of the law can be a form of oppression.

No, he would be arrested because he flew into a no-fly zone. Stadiums are restricted airspace (from ground to 3000 feet above ground) - you are absolutely not allowed to fly in restricted airspace (except in emergencies). This applies whether we're talking drone, a Cessna 150, a 747, or military jet.

Now, it's possible that many people are flying drones illegally. The reason it's hard is because most of these flights are transient in nature - if you have a drone on the ground, it's legal. While it's flying, it's not legal. But if the drone is back on the ground by the time the cops arrive, well, unless there's evidence it's your drone flying illegally, they really can't do anything.

This guy was stupid, because he left behind evidence, so even if he was back on the ground, it's easy to tie him to the action and thus, the illegal flight. If all he did was fly a drone with a banner on it, it's a lot harder to tie him to the action especially if he got rid of the banner.

Basically, stupid people get caught. And stupid includes making it plainly obvious you're doing something illegal.

Re:Free speech does not exclude laws

[sabri]

Stadiums are restricted airspace (from ground to 3000 feet above ground)

No they are not. Get your facts straight.

At this time, there is not a single permanent restriction on flying over any stadium in the U.S.Only Disneyland and Disneyworld have permanent restrictions.

Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) are enacted by the FAA during events only. And even then, the TFRs are in some cases very conditional. Levi's Stadium for example, was somehow approved directly under the flight path for KSJC. Depending on the wind, arriving or departing traffic will have to overfly the stadium during normal operations. Depending on the type of TFR, even regular traffic (your friendly Cessna pilot) may get permission from ATC to fly through the TFR. Levi's stadium is within SJC's class C so you'd be talking to ATC anyway.

And here is a real world example: SJC itself would be within the TFR being within 3nm (2.1nm from the DME). I like to fly the Bay Tour every once in a while. Departing from Reid-Hillview (a small south San Jose airport), I have to fly directly over SJC airport. Typically, SJC ATC will instruct you to fly straight over the airport at 2500ft, so that would be within your beloved TFR. And guess what? That is no problem whatsoever.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Re: Free speech does not exclude laws

[dave420]

Maybe you should mention how mentioning virtue signalling or SJWs is virtue signalling...

Re:Free speech does not exclude laws

[misaltas]

That phrase does not mean what you think it does.

It means that you can't be arrested for talking trash about the government.

If you're being sarcastic, then dilly dilly!

Else, no, it doesn't mean what YOU think it does.

The first amendment has nothing to do with "trash talking the government", egads, man...

Re:Free speech does not exclude laws

[artemis67]

> Are people really this stupid these days?

Have you seen who was elected president?

Re:Free speech does not exclude laws

[CaptainDork]

Hey, asshole. Read this. *emphasis mine)

CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Re:Free speech does not exclude laws

[misaltas]

Hey, asshole. Read this. *emphasis mine)

CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Wow... Hilarious that your rude response proves MY point and opposes your own.

Let's see if you can follow this. I'll try one more time. More slowly this time... See if you can keep up.

• -- The First Amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT from restricting your speech. About ANYTHING.
• -- (With some well-defined exceptions) it doesn't matter WHAT that speech is about.
• -- It has nothing to do with the government only restricting speech about or against the government.
• -- It has nothing to do about trash talking the government.
• -- It's about government not being able to restrict your speech in general.

If you still can't grasp the important difference between your error and the truth, try XKCD's take on the subject. And then maybe go back to high school, cuz it's obvious you missed a few days.

In other words, if you're going to be smug, first be correct.

What did the leaflets say?

[Anonymous Coward]

What did the leaflets say?

Re:What did the leaflets say?

[DontBeAMoran]

The leaflets asked people to deposit them in a recycling bin.

Re:What did the leaflets say?

[Known Nutter]

Most media outlets aren't reporting the content of the leaflets, probably to avoid promoting this sort of thing, but the initial report I saw indicated something about corrupt media and assault on freedom.

A rep for the Santa Clara Police Department (SCPD) told the San Francisco Chronicle the leaflets included, "something about free speech and his belief that television stations are corrupt."

source

Re:What did the leaflets say?

[Hal_Porter]

CBS have declined to explain but a bit of searching turns up this

https://www.facebook.com/RedXS...
https://archive.fo/eoZiN

https://www.facebook.com/Tracy...
https://archive.fo/IcXKV

https://www.facebook.com/notes...
https://archive.fo/ywhAk

tl;dr - nothing particularly interesting. Archive links because FB will probably pull his account to protect us all from reading his rather empty, but basically harmless rants.

Re:What did the leaflets say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most media outlets aren't reporting the content of the leaflets, probably to avoid promoting this sort of thing

It might have something to do with the fact that the leaflets accused the media (the ones hiding this part of the story) of launching a coup d'etat against the United States, that the media are complicit in a fear-based propaganda war to enhance the power of the deep state and deprive citizens of their liberties.

Re:What did the leaflets say?

[AmiMoJo]

Or it might be because they are the deranged rantings of POTUS.

Re:What did the leaflets say?

[FatdogHaiku]

On advice of counsel, the leaflets chose to remain silent, but not before they had invoked the 1st, 5th, and 9th amendments

Re:What did the leaflets say?

[Known Nutter]

It might have something to do with the fact that the leaflets accused the media (the ones hiding this part of the story) of launching a coup d'etat against the United States, that the media are complicit in a fear-based propaganda war to enhance the power of the deep state and deprive citizens of their liberties.

Could be. Nothing would surprise me anymore.

Re:What did the leaflets say?

[drew_kime]

Or it might be because they are the deranged rantings of POTUS.

That's what he said.

Re:What did the leaflets say?

[artemis67]

How dare they slander the POTUS by quoting him verbatim and providing the actual context!

Never mind the illegal flying

[DontBeAMoran]

Charge him with littering.

Re:Never mind the illegal flying

[MrL0G1C]

I came here to say this, it's pretty obvious really.

Re:Never mind the illegal flying

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Actually littering might get thrown out as speech, in this case the handing out of pamplets overrides this. This is why people who throw newspapers on your lawn can't be charged with littering, and that's your house.

There could be a danger violation here, but not a mundane littering charge.

Re:Never mind the illegal flying

[MrL0G1C]

I'd argue that if you're not giving the leaflet to someone directly then it is littering. Also if it's not being dropped within the vicinity of a persons door / mailbox / front lawn. And 1 leaflet might be ok but not 100.

In the UK we don't have free speech laws AFAIK and you'd get slapped with a fine for littering pretty fast I expect (I'm not a lawyer). The newspaper on a lawn thing doesn't happen here, it rains too much and you'd risk having someone throwing it straight back at you!

Re:Never mind the illegal flying

[Aighearach]

It is the same here in the US, the dropping of it on the ground isn't speech, so it doesn't matter what the content of the pamphlet is.

Freedom of the Press, which is how our free speech is actually worded, prevents the government from measuring the content of the speech of the item dropped on the ground; they're required to solely assess if you abandoned it in public in violation of the littering law. They can't look at it and respond differently based on what it says unless it contains threats, evidence of a crime, or something similar.

If they were dropping them on the ground and then picking them back up, that would be protected, and would probably be considered speech. But actions are only considered speech to the extent that they are communicative; the non-communicative portion involved in the abandonment of said items gets left out of the speech analysis. So dropping it on the ground might be speech, but leaving it there is certainly not.

I am not a lawyer, but I do read SCOTUSblog.

Re:Never mind the illegal flying

[CrimsonAvenger]

Freedom of the Press, which is how our free speech is actually worded

Oh??

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

FAA still to speak

[HornWumpus]

You're not supposed to fly directly over crowds.

I always maintain a horizontal offset while trolling crowds of paranoids with my model predator drone. Protip: Put a plant into the crowd to 'spot the drone' or 90% of flights are wasted.

TFR

[mattwarden]

Regardless of the proximity to the airport, all stadiums are under a TFR up to 3000 AGL above and around a stadium during NFL games. See https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_...

Re:TFR

[drinkypoo]

Regardless of the proximity to the airport, all stadiums are under a TFR up to 3000 AGL above and around a stadium during NFL games.

And that's what's actually relevant here, since you only have an obligation to notify an airport if you're going to fly within five miles. You're still not allowed to ever fly your drone actually over the airport, or usually a small border around it, but it's not five miles. Some airports have a web form you can fill out to provide notification, others expect it in writing, some will take a phone call. This notion that you are prohibited from flying a drone within five miles of an airport is bollocks.

Another spoiled citizen.

[Gravis Zero]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the first amendment because it exists to ensure that political dissent cannot be silenced. However, this is a good example of another citizen who has been spoiled by the first amendment. While some may call his views as "opinions" the reality is that some people subscribe to factually incorrect narratives. Sadly our own president has been pushing these false narratives which only encourages more extreme behavior. The freedom of speech is not unlimited like some people (e.g. this guy) seem to think.

Re:Another spoiled citizen.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Factually incorrect narratives? You mean like ABC News did just today? The Dow plunged 350 points after the false report.

It's pretty hard to defend anyone for attacking the media when they do such a good job at either lying or being totally incompetent at their job. Remember how they showed why they're so mistrusted when they lied about Trump and the koi pond?

Re:Another spoiled citizen.

[DNS-and-BIND]

The media IS lying. They just lie about the important things, the mundane things like the weather they don't lie about. Why are you defending them? #1 they don't need your help, they're the freaking media, #2 they lie. It's been proven so many damn times it's not even funny, and if your news sources don't point this out every time it happens, you're watching untrustworthy news sources. I mean, WTF the media heads openly use threats and intimidation now. Doesn't that just scream "EVIL"?

"One of the things I think this administration hasn't figured out yet is that thereâ(TM)s only one television network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seoul, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus â" and that's CNN," Zucker said. "The perception of Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN.

Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with that network is a mistake."

-- Jeff Zucker, CNN Ceo.

Re:Another spoiled citizen.

[DogDude]

You're a nutter. Saying "an industry made up of millions of people lie 100% of the time about important stuff" because occasionally one or two people does something wrong is absurd. That's the same argument that racists, sexists, and every other kind of piece of shit human being uses.

You're either deliberately being malicious, or you have a screw loose. I don't know which it is, but again, if ytou're being deliberately malicious, again, go fuck yourself. If you're nuts, then I hope you get help.

Re:Another spoiled citizen.

[DNS-and-BIND]

That's how you know a fanatic: someone who is unconvinced by evidence. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend the media doesn't lie to you, all the evidence in the world will never convince you. Did the press lie about the koi pond? Yes. Did they lie about Flynn? Yes. They are not neutral observers, they are a partisan force, on the side of the Left. This is not in doubt.

Re:Another spoiled citizen.

[DogDude]

Evidence. You pluck out two points out of millions and call that "evidence". You are clearly not a scientist. You are not even a particularly strong thinker. I don't think that you're a troll... just a lazy thinker.

Re:Another spoiled citizen.

[DNS-and-BIND]

The media is lying to you. Are you seriously saying we should trust them? WTF? It's like the character in the first five minutes of a dystopia film. The one who shortly gets disappeared.

CNN on family leave before and after Trump backed it

Julie Pace of the AP calls Trump a liar about media conspiracy while she was actively conspiring to promote Clinton.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/trump-keeps-claiming-fake-news-and-these-media-mistakes-make-his-case.html/6/

Paul Krugman Lies. Gets 8k+ retweets. . . "Ok, It's not true". 160 retweets.

NPR chief lives among the savages for a year and it changes his view.

Good for him

[WrongMonkey]

Fighting the good fight, out in the real world, instead of hiding behind a monitor. Sure, he broke the law, but that comes with the territory. Even in a peaceful revolution.

so anachronistic!

[Gravis Zero]

all stadiums are under a TFR up to 3000 AGL above and around a stadium during NFL games.

It's been my experience that transferors usually have less than 3000 agility points but I don't see what this has to do with Newfoundland's games. ;)

At least they caught the guy...

[Hrrrg]

My biggest concern with drone is that they will be used for anonymous crimes. Hopefully this story is an indication that we will be able to track down the owners.

Re:At least they caught the guy...

[NewtonsLaw]

Check out DJI's Aeroscope. It's now almost trivial to track errant drones and their owners.

Carefully ignoring what he said

[DNS-and-BIND]

I can't help but notice that the content of the leaflets is not spoken of. Only "anti-media", which we all know is Wrongthink[tm]. We all should believe the media, they wouldn't lie or shelter sex offenders. Or have dead people show up in their offices like MSNBC's Joe Scarborough. A fucking female intern died in his office and he got off scot-free.

No, the story is about how he did wrong. This kind of crap is why nobody trusts the mainstream media any more. If they say the sky is blue you go outside and check.

Re:Carefully ignoring what he said

[Aighearach]

OK, defender of truth and fighter of Wrongthing(TM):

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

My goodness, with a neckbeard that thick I'm surprised you haven't been kidnapped and sold to Bukharan markhor smugglers.

Re:Carefully ignoring what he said

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yaknow, a year ago I would have said you were crazy if you had told me that George Takei and Kevin Spacey were sex offenders. But we today know that's true. It's not beyond doubt that Scarborogh engaged in foul play and a woman died. We KNOW these people abuse the shit out of women. This is a fact.

Re:Carefully ignoring what he said

[SlashDread]

Alledgedy, the leaflet reads "Don't believe everything you read."
Allegedly.

Re:Carefully ignoring what he said

[Aighearach]

George Takei is accused of: Being friends with people at bars ; taking one of those friends home intending sex after that person had a breakup. The only problem is that the other person says he was removing that person's pants when that person awoke from having briefly passed out.

That is not a serious accusation of misconduct. They were both drunk, and it is pretty normal in that situation for both people to want sex. People do not perceive the passage of time when they're passed out; there is no way to know if he merely nodded off for a second at the same time that George was making his move, or if he was actually knew the person was sleeping. He was "go" until "no," and that is exactly what the moral and ethical standards of the time expected.

Kevin Spacey OTOH is accused of child rape.

Re:Carefully ignoring what he said

[Tablizer]

ANY accident in an "important" place deserves more scrutiny, but the original poster wrote it as if it's a sure conspiracy or proven coverup. If you have more evidence, bring it forth. Otherwise, STFU.

Re:Carefully ignoring what he said

[DNS-and-BIND]

We don't judge people by the standards that existed at the time, we judge people by today's standards. Otherwise rapists like Roman Polanski and Bill Clinton would get off scot free today. Takei is a rapist, end of story. I'm shocked to see people defending a rapist, maybe there's something in your past we don't know about?

Re:Carefully ignoring what he said

[Aighearach]

We

OK, I looked it up and you're still not the Queen. So therefore, no we don't.

I Suppose We Should Be Grateful?

[IonOtter]

He could have used artillery...

Re:Concrete Security Dome to Thwart Drone Attacks

[IonOtter]

Sooner than you think...

Bad reporting

[linuxwrangler]

Almost every report I've read about this has a comment that it is illegal to fly within 5 miles of an airport which is simply untrue. You can fly within 5 miles of any airport. If the airport is not in Class B airspace then you are required to *notify* the operator and, if there is a control tower, the tower of your operational plans. Within Class B airspace, which does not cover either stadium as they are not within 5 miles of San Francisco International, you need permission and must coordinate with the controllers.

But it *is* illegal to fly within 3 miles of a NFL stadium from one hour before to one hour after a scheduled game. Similar restrictions apply to certain other sporting events like NASCAR and NCAA division one football.

And the miles are *nautical* miles which are roughly 15% greater than statute miles. The reporters never make that distinction, either.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_...