I am totally for people being able to expose farm cruelty if the goal is an open debate to enact political change. I wonder, however, if sometimes people use th

I am totally for people being able to expose farm cruelty if the goal is an open debate to enact political change. I wonder, however, if sometimes people use their free speech rights to terrorize potential supporters and advocates, folks who are unfamiliar with reality and context, in order to raise money through FUD. That doesn't mean I don't support their right to free speech. Just means that the speaking part and the recording part need to be considered separately. I added that caveat because what we're going to see is all sorts of people with all kinds of interests taping things, especially with drone technology and ubiquitous surveillance. This isn't somebody writing a play, novel, or an editorial. It's somebody taking something that you thought was private and displaying it for the world to see, inside their own editorial frame. It's something we should think about carefully. While I am completely in support of MLK's right to make the speech "I have a dream", I'm not so sure I'd be in favor of somebody secretly taping him with a drone while he was creating it. And then creating their own political content around that tape. Case in point: here's an article I was going to research and rewrite last week but didn't have time. In Australia, animal activists are planning on using drones to tape farmers looking for cruelty. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/02/animal_liberation_australia_drones/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/02/animal_liberation_au... Would you want anybody with a political cause access to your property whenever they wanted to make recordings to support their political point?