How Taking a Photograph of Old Faithful This Summer Could Land You in Jail

[aceplace57]

ABC is exaggerating a bit. I doubt tourists at Yellowstone will get arrested for photos anytime soon. People pay a fee to enter national and state parks. They are there by invitation.

But, how can you trespass on public lands? Doesn’t that imply free access to anybody? Paparazzi use this loophole all the time. They can stand on a public parking lot, or sidewalk and take all the intrusive photos they want.

This does sound like a pretty screwed up law. Isn’t it already illegal to enter private land? Why was a special law needed?

Classic case of shooting the messenger. Don’t even think about reporting pollution in Wyoming.

Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More

While the law is meant to criminalize the act of entering public and private lands in order to collect pollution data, critics argue that the law’s wide-ranging restrictions could ensnare a tourist taking photos in one of the state’s National Parks.

“We hold the protection of private property in very high regard,” state Sen. Leland Christensen, a Republican lawmaker who chaired the committee that oversaw the bill’s legislative process, told ABC News.

“People that own property, either good or bad actors, deserve to be protected on their private property,” said Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Western Stock Growers Association, a trade association that supported the bill during the legislative process. Magagna said most industrial cattle grazing practices are designed to avoid pollution, and that Wyoming’s trespassing laws needed to be updated.

But opponents argue that Wyoming already has strict trespassing laws in place for private property.

“The Wyoming law is totally unnecessary to criminalize trespass onto private land,” William Funk, a professor of law at the Lewis and Clark University, wrote to ABC News in a statement. Funk also argued that collecting data is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment.

[Little_Nemo]

The law apparently makes it a crime to collect data with the intent of submitting it to a government agency. If so, I wondering if it infringes on the Constitutional right to petition the government.

[Suburban_Plankton]

I have to agree with Professor Funk; there is no need for a new law that criminalizes trespassing on private land, and criminalizing the gathering (and by extension dissemination) of information on public land is a First Amendment violation.

[GIGObuster]

An idea from the Wyoming legislature.

I guess Super Chicken was right, the Geezers are stealing the Geyser.

[BigT]

What I want to know is who they think they are fooling with these laughable tactics. I’ll make it illegal to talk about! That’ll assure people it’s not happening!

[Bricker]

@aceplace57

This does sound like a pretty screwed up law. Isn’t it already illegal to enter private land? Why was a special law needed?

Ken White, at Popehat.com, had a great line about asking law professors for comment on legal issues related to public policy they favor (or disfavor):

Quoting professors about law is particularly risky, if your aim is an accurate and informative discussion of free speech law. If you call a physics professor and ask them what will happen if you drop your pencil, and why, he or she will say “it will fall, because of gravity.” There is a relatively low chance that the professor will tell you “well, maybe nothing will happen” because he or she harbors the belief that the current gravitic regime is unfair and otherwise problematical. But when you call a professor of law, or political science, or journalism, and ask them a question about whether some controversial speech is protected by the First Amendment, there is an unacceptably high probability that you will get a quote expressing what the professor thinks the law ought to be. Sometimes the professor will flag a statement as an argumentative one, sometimes not. Moreover, some professors . . . . how can one put this delicately? Some law professors’ views on how a court is likely to rule on an issue are untainted by exposure to actual courts.

Many professors will give you a sober, accurate and well-informed assessment of how a court would likely approach a given free speech situation. The trick is separating those professors from ones who are out of their field or mere advocates.

This is also true for other areas of law.

I’m reasonably confident that the existing trespass law isn’t triggered until the trespasser is given clear notice to leave the land.

The proposed new law would complete a crime the moment information is gathered with the intent of submitting it.

Now, I’m neither championing or decrying this new law, although I will say in passing that I think it raises a number of serious concerns. But it’s important to discuss the situation accurately. The existing law will NOT provide the same protections as the new law. We should debate whether we want to extend those new protections to private property owners and derogate the ability of others to (relatively) non-intrusively gather environmental data. (OK, I might be showing a bit of bias with that description).

[Amateur_Barbarian]

Does this law possibly have more to do with use of photo drones than ground-bound photographers? Everyone everywhere is suddenly panicking (with some measure of cause) about amateur drone operators.

[TBG]

@aceplace57

But, how can you trespass on public lands? Doesn’t that imply free access to anybody?

Aren’t government buildings on public lands? You sure don’t have free access to those other than certain designated areas (like the lobby).