Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by wright35633:
I bet a republican or two had a hand in this. Money transcends political parties my friend.


The link is to some conspiracy theory drivel. It says the new rule prohibits reporters and photographers from coming within 65 FEET of a vessel or boom. Those long lenses the press uses could get a shot of a freaking mosquito at more than 65 feet. And how many images of oil-soaked birds do we really need to see anyway? We get the point. The oil is killing wildlife. There's really nothing "news" about anything now but the extent/areas of the spill and the potential for stopping the **** leak. "Orwellian reality"? These people need to get a grip. Did they ever think that maybe the media is just in the way?
quote:
Originally posted by lawguy07:
quote:
Originally posted by wright35633:
I bet a republican or two had a hand in this. Money transcends political parties my friend.


The link is to some conspiracy theory drivel. It says the new rule prohibits reporters and photographers from coming within 65 FEET of a vessel or boom. Those long lenses the press uses could get a shot of a freaking mosquito at more than 65 feet. And how many images of oil-soaked birds do we really need to see anyway? We get the point. The oil is killing wildlife. There's really nothing "news" about anything now but the extent/areas of the spill and the potential for stopping the **** leak. "Orwellian reality"? These people need to get a grip. Did they ever think that maybe the media is just in the way?


Although I am as big an enthusiast for the First Amendment as anyone, I tend to agree with you on this, lawguy. The situation is somewhat analagous to the restrictions imposed at crime scenes and accident scenes, where law enforcement authorities may legitimately control public access. Sixty-five feet is not a big impediment to filming or photographing what is going on at these specific oil remediation areas.

From the groaning of Anderson Cooper, one might think his crew was equipped with 1952 Kodak box cameras instead of the state of the art optics they use to zero in on objects at a distance..

I have noticed that often, in situations like these, news crews all collect at the easiest points of access to desirable shots, producing something of a crowded situation that can sometimes encumber workers with crowd control obligations that deflect them from the actual work they need to do.

Maybe some of these newsies should extend themselves a bit and scout out some oil-impacted areas that have not yet been discovered. That way, they will be reporting "new news" and concurrently helping remediation personnel to identify new areas that need their services.

Note also that the rule apparently applies only to vessels:

"...vessels must not come within 20 meters [65 feet] of booming operations, boom, or oil spill response operations under penalty of law."

Here is the news release:


"NEW ORLEANS - The Captains of the Port for Morgan City, La., New Orleans, La., and Mobile, Ala. , under the authority of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, has established a 20- meter safety zone surrounding all Deepwater Horizon booming operations and oil response efforts taking place in Southeast Louisiana.

Vessels must not come within 20 meters of booming operations, boom, or oil spill response operations under penalty of law.

The safety zone has been put in place to protect members of the response effort, the installation and maintenance of oil containment boom, the operation of response equipment and protection of the environment by limiting access to and through deployed protective boom.

In areas where vessels operators cannot avoid the 20-meter rule, they are required to be cautious of boom and boom operations by transiting at a safe speed and distance.

Violation of a safety zone can result in up to a $40,000 civil penalty. Willful violations may result in a class D felony.

Permission to enter any safety zone must be granted by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port of New Orleans by calling 504-846-5923."

The Coast Guard understandably does not want a flotilla of news persons in small boats zipping around where these acrtivities are under way.
However, the news release is clumsily worded at one place and thus presents anbiguous information where clarity is much needed. I refer to this part:

"Vessels must not come within 20 meters of booming operations, boom, or oil spill response operations under penalty of law."

Why the awkward "boom"? Do they mean "booms"? Or do they mean "boom or oil spill response operations"--i.e. without the confusing comma? If the latter, how does that differ from "booming operations" in the earlier part of the statement? It is not at all clear whether news personnel in vessels may or may not approach within 65 feet of in-place booms where there are no Coast Guard or other vessels or personnel actively carrying out response operations.

Clearly, the Coast Guard has botched some of the wording here, and that is probably in part to blame for the complaints from the Fourth Estate. Clarity in communication is a must under the current circumstances. The Coast Guard gets D-minus for failing to make its new and potentially controversial rule crystal clear!
quote:
Originally posted by flotown79:
I have viewed the link but I still didn't see where the 1st Amendment was suspended.


this was taken from an article written about a report by Anderson Cooper on CNN, Cooper claims that this newly enacted law prohibits the freedom of press to accurately report on the devastation in the gulf. by my view, anytime the federal government restricts taking photo's or reporting, that is clearly violating the 1st amendment
I am admittedly no lawyer, so perhaps lawguy can voir dire what I'm about to present as "expert opinion." Having read the actual text of the First Amendment, and not just using it as a catch-all complaint against government restrictions, I see no basis for calling restricted access a First Amendment violation. The president is not obligated by the First Amendment to grant unlimited interviews, or to allow pictures of him in the shower. In the same sense, the press is not entitled to unlimited access to anything they wish to photograph and/or report on. If the government tells them to stop publishing pictures they have or to stop taking picture all together, then we have a problem. That hasn't happened here. Photographers aren't allowed in a specific area. That is not covered by the First Amendment.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
I am admittedly no lawyer, so perhaps lawguy can voir dire what I'm about to present as "expert opinion." Having read the actual text of the First Amendment, and not just using it as a catch-all complaint against government restrictions, I see no basis for calling restricted access a First Amendment violation. The president is not obligated by the First Amendment to grant unlimited interviews, or to allow pictures of him in the shower. In the same sense, the press is not entitled to unlimited access to anything they wish to photograph and/or report on. If the government tells them to stop publishing pictures they have or to stop taking picture all together, then we have a problem. That hasn't happened here. Photographers aren't allowed in a specific area. That is not covered by the First Amendment.


i disagree, no where in the first amendment does it say that government can limit what is said or published, this should be especially disturbing because it centers around one of the most devastating events in mans written history.
The law is pretty much a safety one. Sixty-five feet is close enough for anyone not directly involved in the cleanup. Police don't allow reporters to close to a fire, a car wreck or a murder scene.

If the reporter's lens can't handle 65 feet, then fire them and hire paparazzi from the National Inquirer.

No where do a read of a reporter not being able to speak to cleanup personnel.
Last edited by elinterventor01

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×