On Wednesday, FIRE and the National Press Photographers Association filed a lawsuit challenging the arbitrary and unconstitutional laws that require Americans to apply for a permit and pay costly fees before exercising their right to film in national parks. The very next day, the U.S. Senate passed a bill addressing these same issues. The bill now goes to President Biden, who is expected to sign it in a huge victory for filmmakers — and for the First Amendment.
Currently, filmmakers must obtain a permit and pay a fee if they intend to later profit from their footage in national parks, even if they are using the same handheld camera or phone that a tourist would use. Permits are routinely denied for arbitrary and unpredictable reasons, making it difficult for people like documentary filmmakers, press photographers, and wedding videographers to earn a living. Under the EXPLORE Act, that changes.
WATCH VIDEO
The EXPLORE Act, championed in the Senate by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Wyoming Republican John Barrasso, does several things to fix the constitutional problems with the permit scheme that FIRE is challenging. First, so long as the filming takes place where the public is allowed, doesn’t impact other visitors or damage parks resources, and involves five or fewer people, no permit is required. Second, no permit is required simply because the filmmaker intends to make a profit. Third, no permit is needed to film activities that are already allowed in the park. And fourth, the EXPLORE Act makes clear that when the National Park Service has already approved an event like a wedding to take place in a national park, no additional permit is needed to film or photograph the special occasion.
After filing, FIRE and NPPA took the story to the media and to Capitol Hill. FIRE looks forward to seeing this bill become law.
JACKSON HOLE, Wy. Dec. 18, 2024 — Picture three people standing next to each other in Yellowstone National Park. One’s an ordinary tourist, one’s a news reporter, and the third’s a documentary filmmaker. They’re all filming Old Faithful, using the exact same iPhone, and without disturbing anyone around them.
Under federal law, the tourist and the reporter are doing nothing wrong. But the documentarian could face heavy fines — even jail time.
That’s why the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression today filed a lawsuit on behalf of nature and sports photographers and filmmakers Alexander Rienzie and Connor Burkesmith. FIRE’s suit aims to overturn the National Park Service’s onerous, arbitrary, and unconstitutional permit-and-fee scheme that charges Americans for the right to film in public spaces.
“The national parks belong to the American public,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere. “If you have a right to be there, you have a right to film there. The federal government can’t tax Americans to exercise their constitutional rights.”
Joining FIRE’s lawsuit as co-counsel and co-plaintiffs is the National Press Photographers Association, which represents thousands of visual journalists, including Alex and Connor. Although the NPS exempts filming for “news-gathering” from its permit scheme, the NPPA has for years argued that the law imposes an unfair burden on photographers and filmographers, who can’t always know ahead of time who they plan to sell their work to, or even if they plan to sell it at all.
“For decades, the National Press Photographers Association has been working to support the rights of visual journalists and other photographers to document the beauty of our natural resources and the people who visit and care for them in our national parks,” said NPPA President Carey Wagner. “It is unfortunate that the actions and policies of the National Park Service have never fully respected the First Amendment rights of photographers, and it’s even more disappointing that it has become necessary to take the Park Service to court in order to resolve our members’ concerns. NPPA is enormously grateful to FIRE for taking on this case on behalf of all photographers.”
Alex and Connor wanted to film in Grand Teton National Park in September to document an attempt by an athlete to break the record for the fastest climb up the Grand Teton. They planned to have only two or three people, using small handheld cameras and tripods, on the 16-mile route for the shoot. In fact, to keep up with the fast pace of the speedrun, they would carry less gear than the typical climber going up the mountain.
But under current law, whether a filmmaker needs a permit to film in a national park doesn’t depend on the amount of gear they bring or how disruptive filming might be. The only thing that matters is whether their purpose is “commercial.” The rule could apply to filming a big blockbuster movie near the Grand Canyon (where the scale of the project might justify a permit requirement), but also to a small-time YouTuber who posts a video of their jog through the National Mall.
“Congress wanted to keep big Hollywood productions from taking over the parks and keeping others from enjoying their natural beauty,” said FIRE attorney Daniel Ortner. “But the current law wasn’t written for a world where anyone with a smartphone has a film studio in their pocket.”
Alex and Connor knew they might use the footage to produce a documentary film, so they filed for a permit and explained how small their impact would be. But NPS employees have wide and unquestioned discretion under the law to deny permits. NPS denied the permit on the grounds that it could turn the speedrun into a “competitive event”— and pocketed the non-refundable $325 application fee.
“Independent filmmakers don’t have the resources of the big production companies,” said Connor. “It’s a gut punch every time we throw down hundreds of dollars, only to be denied permits for reasons that are vague, arbitrary, and unfair. As someone who needs to film outdoor sports where they happen, it’s a threat to my livelihood.”
Alex and Connor were forced to choose between risking prosecution, or letting a potentially historic event go undocumented. For dedicated documentarians like themselves, it was an easy choice: They filmed without the permit in September.
“In the entire time we were up there, we didn’t get in the way of anyone else’s enjoyment of Grand Teton,” said Alex. “To us, the Grand is a very special mountain that we’ve spent countless hours exploring.”
An NPS spokesperson later announced they had determined that Alex and Connor’s actions didn’t meet all the criteria for charges—but if their work had been featured “in a commercial or a catalog or something like that,” it would be “less of a gray area.” Far from settling the issue, the NPS statement effectively signaled that Alex and Connor could still face charges if they ever sell or use their footage.
FIRE and the NPPA are seeking an injunction in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming to prevent that outcome, and to put a permanent end to a system where individual park employees can deny Americans their First Amendment rights on a whim.
“I chose this line of work because I love the national parks,” said Connor. “Photographers and videographers are the best advocates the parks have; the more people see and understand their unique value, the stronger their desire to protect them. It’s time for the Park Service to stop throwing up roadblocks and work with us, not against us.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
CONTACT:
Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]
The new independent National Student Ombudsman will be led by Sarah Bendall (L), pictured with Jason Clare, in an image posted to social media on November 29, 2024. Picture: Facebook
A highly experienced lawyer has been appointed to lead the anticipated university watchdog and complaints function, after the legislation passed in the last sitting week of parliament.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
In May, I was pleased to see the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) offer a virtual Telehealth Conference. I am always on the lookout for good professional development opportunities, so I signed up.
My schedule had a conflict on that day and I was unable to attend, BUT they posted videos of the sessions online. I was so excited and I could not wait to block time on my schedule, grab some lunch, and listen to the sessions.
You can listen to the sessions as well!
Here is a list of the sessions and the video links:
Leaders from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will discuss priorities and highlight key efforts across the Department to expand access to telehealth services.
Providers and experts will discuss telehealth’s key role in access to behavioral health services as well as the integration of behavioral and physical health services, especially for those in underserved communities.
This session will discuss ongoing efforts to facilitate access to inter-state telehealth services through HRSA’s Licensure Portability Grant Program. Through this program, HRSA provides support to the Federation of State Medical Boards and the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. Participants will learn about current options to address licensure portability reform and have an opportunity to provide feedback.
This session will discuss key policy and infrastructure issues at the state and federal level needed to ensure continued access to telehealth beyond the COVID-19 public health emergency.
This session will discuss key considerations for integrating telehealth in various medical settings. Participants will learn of current models and provide input on ways to address challenges and barriers.
This session will provide an overview of Federal efforts and resources to improve access to broadband, which is a key component to the delivery of telehealth services as well as other social determinants of health.
This session will discuss current efforts to assist providers in using telehealth and considerations for training the workforce for tomorrow. Issues to be discussed will include provider-to-provider mentoring, developing telehealth curriculum for providers and addressing burnout.
This session will provide participants with an opportunity to learn more about the HRSA supported Telehealth Resource Centers including their work and expertise in assisting providers with implementing telehealth services.
This session will discuss leveraging telehealth technology in addressing and treating COVID-19.
Experts will discuss the key telehealth issues and priorities identified by their stakeholders and how those telehealth issues may evolve beyond the pandemic.
Check out the sessions. Which session was your favorite?
Economic & Fiscal Outlook, Office for Budgetary Responsibility (March 2021), adapted from Tables 3.14 & 3.26
I have constructed the table above from forecasts for Total Managed Expenditure and Financial Transactions taken from the Office for Budgetary Responsibility’s latest publication (it accompanied Wednesday’s Budget).
It shows how newly issued student loans are now split into two components for the purposes of presentation in the National Accounts. The portion of loans that are expected to be repaid are classed as “financial transactions”, while the portion expected to be written off is recorded as capital expenditure. The latter scores in “public sector investment”, which was adopted as a new fiscal target prior to the pandemic (net investment cannot exceed 3% of national income), though the rules are currently under review.
We can see that student loan outlay is expected to reach £20billion in the year to March 2021, rising to £23.6billion in five years’ time. The majority of new outlay is now expected to be written off and that share rises over the forecast period. By 2025/26 repayments on all existing loans are projected to re000000000000000ach nearly £5billion per year. (This figure has improved since the sale programme for post-2012 loans was abandoned, since the treasury now gets the receipts that would have gone to private purchasers).
As mentioned in recent posts on here, the Department for Education only currently has an allocation of £4billion to cover the capital transfer / grant element of new loans and so it has to be granted large additional budgetary supplements each year. This situation has dragged on as the planned spending review has been postponed. We can now expect developments in the Autumn.
