@random_eddie @Tomblvd @dcbigjohn No, the article made the larger point that the regs are unconstitutional on their face. Which they are.
-
-
Replying to @Popehat
@Popehat@Tomblvd@dcbigjohn Reading further, they only apply to commercial photography and filming. Does that affect the 1stA analysis?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Tomblvd
@Tomblvd@random_eddie@dcbigjohn Commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Popehat
@Tomblvd@random_eddie@dcbigjohn And you haven't even gone into the press freedom point.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Popehat
@Popehat@Tomblvd@dcbigjohn So how might one craft a regulation that allows journalists (i.e. everyone) to take video and film as press w/o2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie
@Popehat@Tomblvd@dcbigjohn opening the door to Michael Bay filming Transformers VII - Old Faithless in the middle of tourist season?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie
@Popehat@Tomblvd@dcbigjohn The current regs seem intended to address film shoots, not press. Perhaps the effect on press is an oversight?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie
@random_eddie@Tomblvd@dcbigjohn "Oversight" is synonymous with "overbroad." The regulation is unconstitutional.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Popehat
@Popehat@random_eddie Seems the real reg should be about "more than 300 lbs of equipment", or somesuch. Captures all relevant issues.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
@Popehat @random_eddie Seems like a decent reg to protect environment from Michael Bay, Cletus, etc.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.