Go ahead and file this in the ever expanding category of: “WTF, how is this possible, America is becoming a crazy banana republic.”
When I first saw this headline, I was certain it had to be misleading. Someone had to be exaggerating in the pursuit of click-bait. Incredibly, it was another case of truth being stranger than fiction, with the article actually far worse than I imagined.
You ready for this? Have a seat, take a deep breath, and brace yourself for unbridled fascism. From OregonLive:
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.
Yes, you read that right. This also applies to smartphone pictures. Ridiculous.
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.
Liz Close, the Forest Service’s acting wilderness director, says the restrictions have been in place on a temporary basis for four years and are meant to preserve the untamed character of the country’s wilderness.
Close didn’t cite any real-life examples of why the policy is needed or what problems it’s addressing. She didn’t know whether any media outlets had applied for permits in the last four years.
With smartphones blurring the lines between reporters and camera crews, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said the agency should tread more carefully.
“The Forest Service needs to rethink any policy that subjects noncommercial photographs and recordings to a burdensome permitting process for something as simple as taking a picture with a cell phone,” Wyden said. “Especially where reporters and bloggers are concerned, this policy raises troubling questions about inappropriate government limits on activity clearly protected by the First Amendment.”
The First Amendment prohibits the creation of laws that abridge press freedom. Asked whether the Forest Service believes its rule violates the First Amendment, Close replied: “It does not apply to breaking news.”
Looks like someone hasn’t read the Constitution in a while. Or ever.
The Forest Service is currently accepting public comment on its proposal. Those interested can comment online here.
The Washington Post also covered the story here: U.S. Forest Service Wants to Charge $1,500 to Take Photos on Federal Wild Lands
Do I really even need to comment on the ridiculousness of this? It’s Federal land. It’s for the citizens. We are the government. It seems bureaucrats the world over are overdue for a powerful reminder.
For more articles highlighting how citizens are increasingly being treated as slaves, while the rich and powerful get away with incredible crimes, see:
Connecticut Man Arrested for “Passive Aggressive” Behavior to a Watermelon
New Jersey Threatens to Take 13-Year-Old Student From His Father Due to “Non-Conforming Behavior”
Hyper-Sensitive Illinois Mayor Orders Police Raid Over Parody Twitter Account
Charleston Man Receives $525 Federal Fine for Failing to Pay for a $0.89 Refill
The “War on Street Artists” – Puppeteer Unlawfully Arrested and Harassed in NYC Subway
Video of the Day – Thuggish Militarized Police Terrorize and SWAT Team Iowa Family
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Protect your wealth – Buy Gold and Silver Bullion with Goldbroker.com
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
For the last two decades, or so, the Forest Service has been trying to con people into paying for ‘hiking permits’ for access to public land in some places (the Angeles National Forest, in LA, for one).
I suppose we can look forward to someday being billed monthly for breathing air containing oxygen attributed to trees on public land, managed by the Forest Service?
This article is very biased.
1. This is not yet the law
2. It is directed at filming, movie production
3. The forest service says it won’t stop reporters or ordinary citizens
“Faced with increasing criticism of a proposal that would restrict media filming in wilderness areas, the head of the U.S. Forest Service said that the rule is not intended to apply to news-gathering activities.
The rule would apply to commercial filming, like a movie production, but reporters and news organizations would not need to get a permit to shoot video or photographs in the nation’s wilderness areas, Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said.
The USFS is currently accepting comments on the issue here. The period of public comment will be open until 3 November 2014.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/info/news/forestfine.asp#SfKrGhuY9cpcvVYX.99”
No where in the law are individuals prohibited from taking pictures.
This is depraved fear mongering in this article.
Thank you so much for your blistering perspective. I’d add that:
1) Yes, this article is biased. Biased in favor of the First Amendment.
2) Ron Wyden, the Senator of Oregon, also voiced serious First Amendment concerns. I suggest you write to his office and inform him of his depraved fear mongering.
3) I also assume you have already written to the Washington Post and Oregon Live pointing out their depraved fear mongering, as they both mention iPhone photos fall into the law. Last I checked, this shouldn’t be considered movie production.
I’m truly humbled that someone who has never commented on this site previously was so emotionally touched by my depraved fear mongering that they took the time to so passionately comment.
The only reasonable application I can think of for a rule like this would be for people wanting to do serious movie-style shoots in designated wilderness areas, which would impact the wild character of the place and is prohibited by the wilderness legislation. For instance, I believe no wheeled implements are allowed, so you cannot mountain bike through a wilderness area, or drag a wheeled travois-style pack.
But it sounds like this is about controlling information. BS.
Maybe the government doesn’t want Bushistas in there scoping out parcels to build their mansions on if/when Republicans get total power and sell off our public lands. Heh just kidding, or am I?