It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forest Service says media needs photography permit in wilderness areas, alarming First Amendment adv

page: 2
32
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

from you article



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.

so if the article is correct fair to say it would cheaper to pay the fine if caught rather than get a bogus premit

never the less the world we live seems to get more controlled on a daily basis
edit on 24-9-2014 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   

edit on 24-9-2014 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: double



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: xuenchen

from you article



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.

so if the article is correct fair to say it would cheaper to pay the fine if caught rather than get a bogus premit

never the less the world we live seems to get more controlled on a daily basis


Yup.

It's all about progressive authoritarianism and extreme jealousies.

The "Permit Fee" is part of the general illusion.




posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Its all about money with the government.

Give it time and the BLM and park service will want there $1,500 a piece.

Any reporter that wants can just take there photos and up load them to a photo sharing site and then claim they downloaded the photos for there story.
edit on 24-9-2014 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
The first time this goes to court it will be thrown out.

Someone is abusing their power - as is so common with government officials these days.

Government officials, when left unchecked, become lawless. This is a theme repeated throughout history, and is a bane on society.

This is censorship at its finest, and needs to come to a stop.


Yup agreed...

However the manner in which they are going about it is genius - which is the scary part.

Its one thing when a law is passed that states you cannot do this or that. Its something else entirely when instead of a law, we have government agencies that are developing policies instead. The EPA has been doing this, and granted the courts finally started telling the EPA no, its taken a long time to get to this point.

When its a policy its nothing more than a civil challenge instead of a criminal one. A person will have to be affected by the policy in order to challenge it in court.

I think its time for the people to contact their reps and demand a law that forces these executive agencies, when considering policies, be forced to request a law be created in areas like this. Congress is the legislative body and with these executive entities bypassing Congress by hiding behind policies, it creates a very real threat to our liberties.

Contact your reps people and let them know what you think about this.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Destinyone
a reply to: pianopraze


Turn about is fair play. I want the Government to apply for an intrusion permit to data mine my life.

Des


They do, it goes to the FISA court where it has a 99.9999% chance of being approved and no one, even their oversight committee is allowed to know what goes on.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I'd like to add a few points that might be getting over looked.

First this is a "wilderness" area. Which is a bit different than just a national park. Mother Earth News has an article on the difference. While some of the language used on the federal Register seems to be confusing, it looks like it mostly against larger media organizations and groups who are more likely to A. impact the natural resources B. disrupt others enjoyment of the public lands and/or C. profit heavily off of the public lands.

As someone who spends a lot of time outdoors, I am very concerned about these type of proposals. Would I be classified as commercial photographer if I post photos or videos of myself if I'm supported by ad's? Like others have suggested, prosecution would probably be unlikely, but the door would be open for it.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Apparently, this law is already here in Australia: QueenslandLaw

Thanks for the heads-up; I had never heard of this stupidity before.

edit on 24-9-2014 by captainradon because: link fixed (again)



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Random thought, but could this have something to do with whatever's responsible for the incidents David Paulides brings up in Missing 411? You've got people disappearing in wilderness areas and national parks never to be seen again, or found in the form of bone fragments and inexplicably intact clothing. I'm not usually one for conspiracies like this, but you gotta wonder, especially when more than a few cases involved photographers.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
All I can say is f*** that. I'll take photos if I want and that's that.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: pianopraze

HAHA "take only pictures, leave only footprints" is word-for-word the wilderness ethic the forest service has taught for years...



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
this only applies to for-profit reporters. the wilderness act refers to limiting only "for-profit' activities. clearly this is the inbred forest service fools getting carried away with themselves and their will-to-power again. if a reporter took a picture, he would never get fined because no ranger would care. but if he did, the law specifically states that wilderness areas cannot be used for for-profit ventures without a permit. for instance, you need a FS permit if you want to run a pack-mule business taking tourists on wilderness area trips. in that way the FS can limit impact and the number of for-profit guides using an area. they are taking the literal meaning too far, as bureacrats have tendency to do, sad fluks. if you are a reporter for a NON_PROFIT they cannot fine you legally.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: captainradon
Apparently, this law is already here in Australia: QueenslandLaw

Thanks for the heads-up; I had never heard of this stupidity before.

Hmmm.
I wonder if it isn't connected to the UN and Agenda 21?
Do any other countries have this law?



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ShadeWolf
Random thought, but could this have something to do with whatever's responsible for the incidents David Paulides brings up in Missing 411? You've got people disappearing in wilderness areas and national parks never to be seen again, or found in the form of bone fragments and inexplicably intact clothing. I'm not usually one for conspiracies like this, but you gotta wonder, especially when more than a few cases involved photographers.


Interesting theory



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
For me, this is just another admission that the "wise guys" know that the laws were created for the suckers. Hold the public to some standard all the while they can basically get away with murder if they wanted to.

I'm sick of this crap and it merely illustrates that these rules are meant to keep the pee-ons in there place and to keep them in a position of power. Screw the ranger Boo-Boo, I'm gonna take pictures if I want to.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
I''ll tell you why they don't want pictures taken. Although the linked article repeatedly uses the term Forest or Forestry Service, they are leaving out that the US forest service is an agency of the US department of Agriculture. Forests are no longer preserved under their banner but seen as product reserved for corporations.


I couldn't agree with you more and IMO, the fault for this lies squarely at the the feet of American voters.

We have allowed corporations and their unlimited funds to lobby every aspect of our government and elected representatives to the point that the rights of the individual citizen is the least of their concerns. To the point that our government, (both state & federal) is no longer representative of the people. Instead we now have a government that's truly representative of greed, big profit and corporate mentality.

Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, they're doing it at taxpayer expense. In that, these corporations are able to "write-off" their lobbying expenses as part of the cost of doing business.

Of course, I'm sure the first step to creating this system we currently live under had to be for them to lobby Congress to enact IRS statutes that allow these types of "write-offs" to begin with.

In essence, we currently have a system where corporations get to decide whether they pay taxes on their profits OR ..... They can spend that same money that would have paid those taxes on lobbyist, who in turn lobby our legislators to enact legislation that is designed to be beneficial only to them and their interest, including the IRS statutes that allowing them to "write-off" the expense of lobbying in the first place. In exchange for their service, the politician gets all the funding needed to insure re-election.

Anyone other than me see a "Circle-Jerk" going on here? One that the average american voter doesn't even get to participate in? Kinda like a cake-walk where it cost $10,000 just to participate and only the wealthy ever get to eat cake.

Until the people decide to stand up to the current domination that big money and corporations have over our legislators, we should expect more of the same.

Nothing is really going to get fixed until we get the money out of politics and IMO, outlawing paid lobbying altogether, coupled with enacting a constitutional amendment to repeal the "Citizens United" decision would be a great place to start.


edit on 25-9-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Well said. We're definitely being jerked around in circles.


Of course, I'm sure the first step to creating this system we currently live under had to be for them to lobby Congress to enact IRS statutes that allow these types of "write-offs" to begin with.

Thanks for connecting those dots. I hadn't seen it like that before.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: pianopraze

I'm not sure how you got:


In essence they are saying only people who report in ways that make the Forest Service look good are allowed to take photos.


Out of that...

The Media Makes money off reporting. Tourists do not. Those who make money off of something that is typically free but regulated should pay a permit fee. Do you really find that unreasonable?

Did you know that Nat Geo pays fees when they do documentaries about wildlife in Africa? It's because the make money off of it.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Having worked extensively with the USFS, as a motorcycle and mtb race promoter, I am well versed in conditional use permit process. The whole idea behind the OP is BS and fear mongering.
Any commercial operation has to apply for a conditional use permit to use public lands, the fees are small.
Speaking of wilderness areas in particuImlar, wilderness areas are specifically designated areas under the wilderness act o 1964?, the act is overlly broad and vague in it's language. A perfect example is if a hiker in the wilderness is injured and has to heli'ed out by navy SAR, the navy has to apply to congress for a special permit to land the helicopter as the law clearly states "There shal be no use of any mechanical contrivance within the boundaries of the wilderness area". This passage was intended to restrict the use of motor vehicles within the wilderness area , but the language is broad so it so it applies to all mechanical devices, except cameras.
So when the forest service has to do trail maintenance in the wilderness it is all hand work bucksaws instead of chainsaws and sledgehammers instead of jack hammers.
And like the Op clearly says coverage of news events is not covered by the conditional use permit requirements

Again fear mongering bs



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: pianopraze
Parks departments are being seriously underfunded. For an example of how this issue is being dealt with in Canada, I recommend listening to this report from the CBC:

Due to budget cuts, Parks Canada explores charging a fee when wildlife is spotted
www.cbc.ca...
edit on 25-9-2014 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join