7 ms·

It’s not public space, it’s a launch facility literally on a military base.

Dalewyn 2y ago
It's public space in the sense that it's government facilities located on government property. The US military is an arm of the US government and everything is paid for with tax dollars. Access to the public-at-large is obviously controlled as you implied, though, since it is a military facility.
- dontlikeyoueith 2y ago
  No sane person thinks a US military base qualifies as "public space" for photography purposes. Those insane enough to think it does usually end up arrested for taking pictures of classified things.
  - boringg 2y ago
    Well said.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > The language was clear: Photographers were welcome to set up remote shots at ULA launches if they worked for the media or wanted to post their work on social media. However, photographers could not sell this work independently, including as prints for fellow enthusiasts or for use in annual calendars. If they're OK with posting it on social media, it's very clear security isn't the concern.
  - Buttons840 2y ago
    There's a difference between limiting photographs for national security reasons, and limiting photographs for profit motive or control of the press. I think I'm a sane person, I and think if the press is allowed to take photos on a military base, they should also be allowed to sell those photos. This seems very related to freedom of speech and freedom of the press; it's literally the government trying to limit these things in this case.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Read TFA. The press is unaffected.
      - Gare 2y ago
        Is there a "press license" in USA?
        TylerE 2y ago
        Not as such, but working for a credible agency is certainly a thing. Could be a newspaper or a TV station, or a syndicate like the Associated Press or UPI.
        LegitShady 2y ago
        its not a thing in terms of rights or laws. By choosing arbitrary media orgs who can and disallowing normal people who are also press by law, they're kind of screwing themselves here. They can no longer claim this is a security or safety issue.
        TylerE 2y ago
        I don’t think they were saying that, just some posted here. They’re allowed to set the rules on private property. A NASA launch site is not a public park.
        skissane 2y ago
        There is a technical legal difference here, although it doesn’t amount to much in practice. A NASA launch site, even a military base - as government property it formally falls within the scope of the First Amendment. However, once you start evaluating the case law exceptions, almost certainly one or more of them will apply, effectively cancelling out the First Amendment in practice. By contrast, a purely private launch site, like SpaceX’s Boca Chica, isn’t normally within the scope of the First Amendment to begin with, so we don’t even have to consider the exceptions. I think the fact that ULA’s site is leased government property doesn’t per se remove it from the First Amendment’s scope (unlike purely private property such as Boca Chica). But even though it is technically in scope, once the exceptions are considered, it might as well not be. That said, one can think up rather unlikely hypotheticals in which it might make a difference in practice. Suppose, however bizarrely, SpaceX chose to allow a religious group to hold services at its Boca Chica launch site, or a political party to hold a rally there - and then denied requests from competing religious/political groups for the same privilege - as a purely private site, that would likely be within their 1st Amendment rights. By contrast, if they wanted to do the same thing on property they lease from NASA at KSC - or from Space Force at Cape Canaveral or Vandenberg - it could well violate the First Amendment were the government to allow them to do that. Of course, in reality, it is extremely unlikely SpaceX would ever want to do such a thing.
ricketyricky 2y ago
[flagged]

It's public space in the sense that it's government facilities located on government property. The US military is an arm of the US government and everything is paid for with tax dollars. Access to the public-at-large is obviously controlled as you implied, though, since it is a military facility.

dontlikeyoueith 2y ago
No sane person thinks a US military base qualifies as "public space" for photography purposes. Those insane enough to think it does usually end up arrested for taking pictures of classified things.
- boringg 2y ago
  Well said.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > The language was clear: Photographers were welcome to set up remote shots at ULA launches if they worked for the media or wanted to post their work on social media. However, photographers could not sell this work independently, including as prints for fellow enthusiasts or for use in annual calendars. If they're OK with posting it on social media, it's very clear security isn't the concern.
- Buttons840 2y ago
  There's a difference between limiting photographs for national security reasons, and limiting photographs for profit motive or control of the press. I think I'm a sane person, I and think if the press is allowed to take photos on a military base, they should also be allowed to sell those photos. This seems very related to freedom of speech and freedom of the press; it's literally the government trying to limit these things in this case.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Read TFA. The press is unaffected.
    - Gare 2y ago
      Is there a "press license" in USA?
      - TylerE 2y ago
        Not as such, but working for a credible agency is certainly a thing. Could be a newspaper or a TV station, or a syndicate like the Associated Press or UPI.
        LegitShady 2y ago
        its not a thing in terms of rights or laws. By choosing arbitrary media orgs who can and disallowing normal people who are also press by law, they're kind of screwing themselves here. They can no longer claim this is a security or safety issue.
        TylerE 2y ago
        I don’t think they were saying that, just some posted here. They’re allowed to set the rules on private property. A NASA launch site is not a public park.
        skissane 2y ago
        There is a technical legal difference here, although it doesn’t amount to much in practice. A NASA launch site, even a military base - as government property it formally falls within the scope of the First Amendment. However, once you start evaluating the case law exceptions, almost certainly one or more of them will apply, effectively cancelling out the First Amendment in practice. By contrast, a purely private launch site, like SpaceX’s Boca Chica, isn’t normally within the scope of the First Amendment to begin with, so we don’t even have to consider the exceptions. I think the fact that ULA’s site is leased government property doesn’t per se remove it from the First Amendment’s scope (unlike purely private property such as Boca Chica). But even though it is technically in scope, once the exceptions are considered, it might as well not be. That said, one can think up rather unlikely hypotheticals in which it might make a difference in practice. Suppose, however bizarrely, SpaceX chose to allow a religious group to hold services at its Boca Chica launch site, or a political party to hold a rally there - and then denied requests from competing religious/political groups for the same privilege - as a purely private site, that would likely be within their 1st Amendment rights. By contrast, if they wanted to do the same thing on property they lease from NASA at KSC - or from Space Force at Cape Canaveral or Vandenberg - it could well violate the First Amendment were the government to allow them to do that. Of course, in reality, it is extremely unlikely SpaceX would ever want to do such a thing.

ricketyricky 2y ago

[flagged]