13th July 2010, 3:00 PM
Weltall Wrote:Literally, what they were saying is that certain areas would be surrounded by a 65 foot safety zone, and there were legitimate reasons for this. Reporters were potentially endangering (and almost certainly interfering with) individuals involved with cleanup. Reporters could gain access to areas within this safety zone if given prior clearance.
This doesn't mesh at all with a statement like "photographing cleanup in the Gulf is now illegal", and all the rage responsible for its being rescinded is the result of media outlets raging over the inconvenience.
Yeah I didn't make myself clear, I meant what they are saying in the news report.
It's been 70 days and not once have I heard any stories about people interfering with cleanup. The motive was pretty much clear. Watch the video, the way the law was being used was to directly stop people from filming.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)