4 ms·

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

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.
  - michaelmrose 2y ago
    You are defining freedom of the press to only apply to a narrow definition of press composed solely of professional agencies which certainly wasn't the case at inception of our country and is also misaligned with legal interpretation thereafter.
    - lazide 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - michaelmrose 2y ago
        This dig is so off I honestly don't know what you are getting at. Freedom of the press can't be limited to government defined group without being abrogated entirely. It is rather the freedom of a citizen to inform their fellows. Likewise national security concerns isn't licence to impose commercial limits on such freedoms without an actual security concern. Once you allow photos to be shared there is no security interest in who gets paid. Failure to attend to the relevant and discard the irrelevant makes it hard to arrive at a reasonable argument.
        lazide 2y ago
        I’m noting that it’s been fashionable to go after people making these types of arguments for… a decade now? Or ‘protest zones’. Either way, I’m struggling to think of a time where the military was okay with folks being around they didn’t have control over.
  - mynameisvlad 2y ago
    Read the comment you replied to, they clearly know that.
  - LegitShady 2y ago
    everybody is the press in the USA. The first amendment guarantees this. This arbitrary idea that you're only press if you belong to some media org is unconstitutional. There is no organization in the government or in private hands that certifies you as press for the purpose of the law. The ULA has actually kind of screwed themselves with this - its not a safety policy on base because they're still allowing some photographers who belong to media orgs. They're allowing photographers who dont belong to media orgs so long as they agree to not sell pictures. The only thing this policy does is restrain the first amendment rights of a subset of photographers. As far as I can tell its an infringement on first amendment rights and ULA has carefully crafted it so they cannot argue a safety or security reason. It clearly only affects those who want to sell the product of their photography, and only those not in some media org that has no bearing on who is press to the law. They kind of f'd themselves with this. Did they not run it by a lawyer? Or do they assume nobody makes enough money doing rocket photography to actually sue them?
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      To be clear, while I think it's a shitty decision, there's no First Amendment issue here. ULA isn't a government organization. They rent the launch site from the government, but under terms that clearly must permit them to restrict access.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- DangitBobby 2y ago
  The press is still allowed to sell the photos. Only hobbyists (people who do not acuire permits) are effected.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    There is no official distinction on who is defined as press on the US

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.
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  You are defining freedom of the press to only apply to a narrow definition of press composed solely of professional agencies which certainly wasn't the case at inception of our country and is also misaligned with legal interpretation thereafter.
  - lazide 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - michaelmrose 2y ago
      This dig is so off I honestly don't know what you are getting at. Freedom of the press can't be limited to government defined group without being abrogated entirely. It is rather the freedom of a citizen to inform their fellows. Likewise national security concerns isn't licence to impose commercial limits on such freedoms without an actual security concern. Once you allow photos to be shared there is no security interest in who gets paid. Failure to attend to the relevant and discard the irrelevant makes it hard to arrive at a reasonable argument.
      - lazide 2y ago
        I’m noting that it’s been fashionable to go after people making these types of arguments for… a decade now? Or ‘protest zones’. Either way, I’m struggling to think of a time where the military was okay with folks being around they didn’t have control over.
- mynameisvlad 2y ago
  Read the comment you replied to, they clearly know that.
- LegitShady 2y ago
  everybody is the press in the USA. The first amendment guarantees this. This arbitrary idea that you're only press if you belong to some media org is unconstitutional. There is no organization in the government or in private hands that certifies you as press for the purpose of the law. The ULA has actually kind of screwed themselves with this - its not a safety policy on base because they're still allowing some photographers who belong to media orgs. They're allowing photographers who dont belong to media orgs so long as they agree to not sell pictures. The only thing this policy does is restrain the first amendment rights of a subset of photographers. As far as I can tell its an infringement on first amendment rights and ULA has carefully crafted it so they cannot argue a safety or security reason. It clearly only affects those who want to sell the product of their photography, and only those not in some media org that has no bearing on who is press to the law. They kind of f'd themselves with this. Did they not run it by a lawyer? Or do they assume nobody makes enough money doing rocket photography to actually sue them?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    To be clear, while I think it's a shitty decision, there's no First Amendment issue here. ULA isn't a government organization. They rent the launch site from the government, but under terms that clearly must permit them to restrict access.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
DangitBobby 2y ago
The press is still allowed to sell the photos. Only hobbyists (people who do not acuire permits) are effected.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  There is no official distinction on who is defined as press on the US