Skip to comments.
Forest Service says media needs photography permit in wilderness areas
http://www.oregonlive.com ^
| 09/23/2014
| By Rob Davis
Posted on 09/24/2014 11:38:10 AM PDT by redreno
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 last
To: redreno
The Soviet Union never died...
41
posted on
09/24/2014 12:38:03 PM PDT
by
Dallas59
To: ully2
These mindless unelected beaurcrats are unaware who owns these lands.These mindless unelected bureaucrats need to be identified so those within reach can...uh, so they can have "accidents".
42
posted on
09/24/2014 12:53:06 PM PDT
by
JimRed
(Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
To: redreno
Franklin B. Hough, US Forest Service: Holy underwear! Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits! Naked brown bears! Mexican marijuana fields going unbribed!
We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!
No photographs without permission and a fat fee and’or fine! More exclamation marks!
43
posted on
09/24/2014 1:00:12 PM PDT
by
tumblindice
(America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
To: redreno
What’s next, need a permit for White House picture?
44
posted on
09/24/2014 1:11:42 PM PDT
by
Lockbox
To: redreno
"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."
Is it a REQUIREMENT that public officials must be liars? She cites the 1964 Wilderness Protection Act as a rationale for this policy, but somehow the Act was in place for 46 years before anyone thought that this particular policy was needed "to protect the wilderness from commercial exploitation."
To: vetvetdoug
"I wonder what handwringing liberal pencil neck bedwetting Democrat came up with this policy?"
You left out "pantywaist" and "metrosexual".
To: IYAS9YAS
"No. Personal photography/filming is perfectly legal. Photography or filming for profit (i.e. movie industry, TV shows, selling prints, etc...) requires a permit, as does any other for-profit venture on public land."
The article claims more than that. It says that reporters doing investigative journalism in these areas require a permit. So, for example, if a reporter found out that the Forest Service was allowing a road to be built, or something else intrusive, in a wilderness area, a reporter would need a permit to take a picture of the road. And if the Forest Service didn't want any bad publicity, they could deny the permit.
To: glorgau
Taking pictures of the forest steals some of its spirit essence and weakens mother Gaia.It saps and impurifies her precious bodily fluids.
48
posted on
09/24/2014 1:25:33 PM PDT
by
Disambiguator
(Who is John Galt? Kristoffer Polaha.)
To: redreno
49
posted on
09/24/2014 1:38:52 PM PDT
by
DPMD
To: ClearCase_guy
"Now people wont be able to see the forest for the fees."
Good one.
50
posted on
09/24/2014 1:40:11 PM PDT
by
DannyTN
To: IYAS9YAS
I knew they put fees on every thing but thought I’d inject it.
To: Dust in the Wind
So now (in addition to being a criminal because I post-on and read Free Republic) I am a criminal because I take a picture of a beautiful sunset over BLM lands out back of my property and sell it? These degenerate federal “workers” are such asses.
52
posted on
09/24/2014 1:54:22 PM PDT
by
hal ogen
(First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
To: redreno
Stories like this once upon a time got me angry.,
Assuming it is true, I am glad to see it.
My reasoning is that the Marxists will finally go too far and create a constitutional case in the Supreme Court and by that, it is possible to get this country back to laws by the rules specified in our Constitution.
There is a lot of money in the news media and they could easily finance a trip to the Supreme court, whereas you and I can not.
So I say show your colors, Park Service and lets have at it.
To: Steve_Seattle
It says that reporters doing investigative journalism in these areas require a permit.Falls directly under the First Amendment regarding Freedom of the Press. It will fail in court.
54
posted on
09/24/2014 3:10:39 PM PDT
by
IYAS9YAS
(Has anyone seen my tagline? It was here yesterday. I seem to have misplaced it.)
To: hal ogen
So now (in addition to being a criminal because I post-on and read Free Republic) I am a criminal because I take a picture of a beautiful sunset over BLM lands out back of my property and sell it? These degenerate federal workers are such asses.If you take the picture from your property, no. If you take it while on BLM land, yes, if you're selling it. It's congress that made the laws these fees fall under, not the employees. However, in this case, it appears to be a misinterpretation of the law by an employee. This falls squarely under the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press, and this would likely be shot down in court.
Most of the fees collected are eventually remitted to the state where they were collected. The theory is that the federal land causes the state to lose out on revenue from business operations that could exist where federal lands exist, so the fees work to offset that lost revenue.
It would be much better for the fed to divest itself of the land, and let it go to the states.
55
posted on
09/24/2014 3:23:25 PM PDT
by
IYAS9YAS
(Has anyone seen my tagline? It was here yesterday. I seem to have misplaced it.)
To: redreno
Is this a joke? What is happening to my country? Please tell me this is satire.
56
posted on
09/24/2014 5:58:22 PM PDT
by
waxer1
(A Republic if you can keep it--Benjamin Franklin. Well we lost it.)
To: redreno
Doesn’t this violate the freedom of the press?
Technically such lands are PUBLIC property.
57
posted on
09/25/2014 8:55:38 AM PDT
by
KoRn
(Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
To: Steve_Seattle
"I wonder what handwringing liberal pencil neck bedwetting Democrat came up with this policy?" You left out "pantywaist" and "metrosexual". Ray: Everything was fine until the grid was shut down by dickless here.
Walter Peck: They caused an explosion!
Mayor: Is this true?
Peter: Yes sir, its true. This man has no dick.
To: nikos1121
Ansel would tell em to sit down and shut up
<
br>
59
posted on
09/25/2014 9:20:38 AM PDT
by
MeshugeMikey
("Never, Never, Never, Give Up," Winston Churchill)
To: Logical me
“America is a communists Country and freedom is just about gone.”
No it’s not. It means, “communists” are running it, and that’s a problem for the American people....the ‘substance’ of the Constitution. What do you think they’ve been doing all this time when they weren’t tending to America’s REAL problems? Well...they were/are working very HARD to see that you and I FEEL that it is such a nation. This way, it will be far easier to institute what they really want to do. You know...”eeeease us into it. Now, I don’t about you, but kneeling, and patiently waiting for it, is not how I ‘roll’.
And, nor do I expect any TRUE fellow Americans to ever posture themselves in such a way, either. Because THAT, will be what allows another country to become more “exceptional” than we.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson