Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bob Blaylock" data-source="post: 360573" data-attributes="member: 16749">If that's the intent, then they are pursuing it incorrectly.&nbsp; As long as the restriction is on photography itself, there is simply no possibility that it will pass Constitutional muster.&nbsp; Government simply does not have the authority to impose restrictions on photography in public places.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; If the concern is large crews associated with a major photography or filming project coming into these areas, and causing damage or disruption, then the policy needs to address that directly.&nbsp; They'd need to address the issue of groups of people and equipment over some objectively-specified size, engaging in any activity (not singling out photography or any other specific activity) that might cause damage or disruption, and imposing what reasonable restrictions are necessary to prevent or mitigate this damage or disruption.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bob Blaylock, post: 360573, member: 16749"] If that's the intent, then they are pursuing it incorrectly. As long as the restriction is on photography itself, there is simply no possibility that it will pass Constitutional muster. Government simply does not have the authority to impose restrictions on photography in public places. Period. If the concern is large crews associated with a major photography or filming project coming into these areas, and causing damage or disruption, then the policy needs to address that directly. They'd need to address the issue of groups of people and equipment over some objectively-specified size, engaging in any activity (not singling out photography or any other specific activity) that might cause damage or disruption, and imposing what reasonable restrictions are necessary to prevent or mitigate this damage or disruption. [/QUOTE]

Verification