Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Unconstitutional Park Service Filming Rule Upheld by Appeals Court" video.

  1. TBH, the permits should be free and just to detail what you're planning on doing and where you're planning to be. The taxes to pay for processing and monitoring should come from the rich. If you look at the actual fees being charged, they are transparent about the fact that the money is going to cover the expense of government employees keeping an eye on the filming to ensure that the area isn't being trashed. My main objection is that there should really be a $0 tier for people that are just sticking to an established trail and setting up a single camera. That could also be commercial in nature, but not something that really justifies having a fee associated. A random check on some number of those licenses would likely be more than sufficient.
    1
  2. Yes, pulling a permit these days isn't necessarily very hard. Now, if the process involved having to travel out of state to apply, like it does if you want to file for a mining claim, I think there would be a point here. But, there are permits involved with other commercial activities on public lands that are more or less just get a copy of the rules from the state and there isn't even a fee associated with it. Letting the government know about more invasive than normal use isn't a particularly high burden and unless the government starts to decide that some commercial users are OK and others aren't, I fail to see a 1st amendment issue here.
    1
  3. I think the basis for the reversal was BS, but having permits for commercial filming does make a lot of sense. There's a lot of permitting like that which goes on. For example, the permit for panning for gold in public streams and rivers here is free, and it mostly involves getting a copy of the rules from the state. In terms of commercial filming, filming outside can be incredibly invasive and damaging to the area. A bunch of moving back and forth over the land and potentially setting up lights and mics to cover what's going on. Photography can involve most of those things, but in practice most of that stuff isn't useful in outdoor photography. I do think some form of license to ensure that the people involved know the rules and the government can keep track of what's going on in case there is damage is fully appropriate. Journalists really should be an exception though as trying to pull a permit for breaking news is ridiculous and even for nonbreaking news, it's just too close to regulating journalism.
    1