...Really? First amendment anyone?

[Dark Jaguar]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpJBsjKhRTo&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpJBsjKhRTo&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

It's now illegal to photograph what's going on in the gulf. Why? What purpose does it serve? This'll get challenged in the courts for sure. Sorry Obama, this was a boneheaded unconstitutional move. Not a single news station, who make their living from freedom of the press, are going to be with you on this. Fox News? Hahaahaahahaha.

[Weltall]

It's now illegal to photograph what's going on in the gulf.

That's an interesting version of the truth!

[Dark Jaguar]

That's an interesting version of the truth!

It's literally what they are saying.

[Dark Jaguar]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/07/b...pular.html

And just like that it's over.

To be clear, the basic restriction was, "you can't be in this this this this and this location". Outside those "zones" people could still take pictures and record things, but as the various news stations and so on make clear, that basically means you can't report on it.

[Weltall]

It's literally what they are saying.

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with a statement like "photographing cleanup in the Gulf is now illegal", and all the rage responsible for its being rescinded is the result of media outlets raging over the inconvenience.

[Dark Jaguar]

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.

[Darunia]

Honestly, I don't think being told to stay at least 65 feet away from a Coast Guard ship conducting an operation is that big a deal. It says nothing about photography that I heard.

[A Black Falcon]

Perhaps... However, BP itself is doing most of the "let's try to keep as many people out of the affected zone as possible" stuff. That the US Government hasn't exactly seemed to be effective in stopping them from doing that does make me wonder about this, too...

[Dark Jaguar]

Well it's a worthwhile consideration. It may just be a really stupid move on the government's part. One thing's for sure, it plays right into BP's hands as everything they've done flies in the face of everything they've said.

Keep in mind that as of yet no one's actually interfered with anything. They've just been taking pictures and trying to inverview people.

[lazyfatbum]

gay