Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. And yes,
this includes Senator’s Twitter feeds. This week, there was a media feeding
frenzy after the Oregonian broke a story alleging
that the Forest Service wants to charge you $1500 to take a photo of the Wilderness
- and ignore the right to free speech while they’re at it. Outside
Magazine, Adventure
Journal and other news outlets ran with the article, and a couple of elected
officials in Oregon even piled on, slamming the Forest Service.
Thing is, they don't have it quite right.
If you actually read the rule the Forest Service plans to
institute, it will not affect your ability to Instagram from the Wilderness.
The heart of the matter is the permits the agency requires for filming that
has any commercial component – meaning it is used as an ad or sold at some
point. With the proposed new rule, they are adding new criteria to get a permit
for such use in designated Wilderness. Importantly, these permits only apply to
things “other
than noncommercial still photography.” So you can keep snapping photos, and so can the press. Not
only is still photography exempt, these rules for commercial filming permits
have been in place for a long time, and the Wilderness specific rules have
actually been in effect for the last 4 years. All without much fuss.
Now, could the Forest Service have done a better job
explaining all this and avoiding the blowback? Yes. Are there ways the existing
and new permitting rules could be improved? Sure. And is it worth considering
the heavy burden the permits may place on near-amateur filmmakers, whose work can
help draw more people into the outdoors? Absolutely.
But before any news outlet jumps to conclusions and waves
the First Amendment flag – or reposts others that have done just that –
they should crack open the Federal Register and take a closer look. The Forest Service has since responded, saying they have no intention of limiting free speech.
