"Credible Threat" Prompts Drone Ban in Chicago.

[Bad Santa]

If the restrictions were for public (or even political) safety, I could see it but the restrictions seem to be completely related to limiting observation of goings-on.

 

[ericole]

As a recent transplant to Portland Oregon, having only lived here a short 50 years, I'm having a really hard time believing the media reports these days.
I think we need MORE eyes in the sky from the general population than less.
These TFR's seem a little more like control rather than safety.

Don't disagree - can't trust anything media says without much cross-referencing to get to the truth. Sad state of affairs.

 

[ericole]

And there you have the 2nd most common form of mis-interpretation of the Constitution: the "you can't yell fire in a movie theater" ridiculousness.

"Your rights are not absolute so therefore it's ok if I take some of them!"

Why do we have to go over this for every time something new comes up? The Internet is not covered. Drones are not covered. Laser guns are not covered.

The same way the government can't put up yellow crime tape in a ring around the city of Chicago and tell reporters to stay outside the tape is the same way they can't launch a TFR the size of Illinois to keep drones from seeing what ICE does on roof tops in downtown Chicago.

Since you don't point to any specific statement, you'll have to expound on this: "And there you have the 2nd most common form of mis-interpretation of the Constitution: the "you can't yell fire in a movie theater" ridiculousness."

 

[mavic3usa]

Since you don't point to any specific statement, you'll have to expound on this: "And there you have the 2nd most common form of mis-interpretation of the Constitution: the "you can't yell fire in a movie theater" ridiculousness."

It means I spent a lifetime working thru all these sorts of obstacles to freedom on the 2nd amendment and I almost don't have the energy to work on the same for the 1st amendment. I thought it was pretty secure but I am finding it's far from it, almost more than the other amendments. In fact, it's on the verge of collapse, all elements whether we are talking about free press, free speech, freedom of religion, redress, and assembly. It's disappointing because without a free press, we have no free country and I honestly didn't think anyone thought you could hold the press down to pen and paper and restrict everything else...just because it's not "guaranteed." If the government wanted to stop drones from reporting for the press, if the TFR gets lifted, they can just suspend/revoke their part 107 certificate and then you can't fly a drone (safely), are you ok with that?

 

[hank970]

I've been a gun owner for 68 years, and I've never feared that any entity would take away my firearms. And thus far, none has. I also did a six-year hitch in the Marines and then was a commissioned federal law enforcement officer for 27 years. I know my way around firearms.

That said, I often wonder how so-called originalists ignore the original wording in the Second Amendment which very specifically mentions "a well regulated Militia..." Apparently, this Supreme Court thinks that, when Bubba and Rufus put on their camouflage clothing and grab their ARs, they're a well regulated militia. If, instead, our various state national guards are well regulated militias, then I sure don't approve of the way that some of them are being used nowadays.

 

[Bad Santa]

The 1st amendment wasn't that every person has the right to free speech without repercussions. It was SUPPOSED to be that the government wouldn't be allowed to interfere with a person speaking ill of the government (or the officials).
In other words, the people were free to oppose the government vocally without fear that the government would punish them for it.

 

[mavic3usa]

As everyone knows, if there is no way for the government to punish a person, legally a person can do whatever the law allows without criminal repercussion and that leaves only civil repercussions and administrative punishment. The 1st amendment covers 5 major areas and one of them is free speech. The one we are discussing in particular is the free press and it has many important aspects well beyond just protecting the mainstream media against adverse action from the government when publishing stories.

 

[Bad Santa]

As everyone knows, if there is no way for the government to punish a person, legally a person can do whatever the law allows without criminal repercussion and that leaves only civil repercussions and administrative punishment. The 1st amendment covers 5 major areas and one of them is free speech. The one we are discussing in particular is the free press and it has many important aspects well beyond just protecting the mainstream media against adverse action from the government when publishing stories.

Depends on how you define punishment.

 

[ericole]

It means I spent a lifetime working thru all these sorts of obstacles to freedom on the 2nd amendment and I almost don't have the energy to work on the same for the 1st amendment. I thought it was pretty secure but I am finding it's far from it, almost more than the other amendments. In fact, it's on the verge of collapse, all elements whether we are talking about free press, free speech, freedom of religion, redress, and assembly. It's disappointing because without a free press, we have no free country and I honestly didn't think anyone thought you could hold the press down to pen and paper and restrict everything else...just because it's not "guaranteed." If the government wanted to stop drones from reporting for the press, if the TFR gets lifted, they can just suspend/revoke their part 107 certificate and then you can't fly a drone (safely), are you ok with that?

I actually think we have no free country first and foremost if there is no freedom of religion. All else flows from this. But I agree, many have done a lot to erode the foundations of our government away.

I'm also for freedom of the press, but I do wish there was a clause - something like, "as long as it is true information being reported." Because it is clear to see that for pretty much since that Amendment was ratified we've had factions of the press lying, leaving out key parts to frame a narrative, etc. Adams vs. Jefferson: The Birth of Negative Campaigning in the U.S.

It's sort of like public education - if we don't teach the full and truthful history of things, but instead teach a revised or slanted version of events, our children aren't learning the truth and thus won't be able to progress accurately based on what has already transpired.

 

[mavic3usa]

I actually think we have no free country first and foremost if there is no freedom of religion. All else flows from this. But I agree, many have done a lot to erode the foundations of our government away.

I'm also for freedom of the press, but I do wish there was a clause - something like, "as long as it is true information being reported." Because it is clear to see that for pretty much since that Amendment was ratified we've had factions of the press lying, leaving out key parts to frame a narrative, etc. Adams vs. Jefferson: The Birth of Negative Campaigning in the U.S.

It's sort of like public education - if we don't teach the full and truthful history of things, but instead teach a revised or slanted version of events, our children aren't learning the truth and thus won't be able to progress accurately based on what has already transpired.

Here's my quick rebuttal:

(not me, not my video)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Droning on and on...]

If the restrictions were for public (or even political) safety, I could see it but the restrictions seem to be completely related to limiting observation of goings-on.

This seems to ignore the fact that ICE and BP agents are being shot at, run down with cars, attacked with bricks and other heavy, thrown objects, etc.

I am making no statement w.r.t. the politics of the immigration enforcement issue. I'm simply acknowledging that these personnel are indisputably under attack, and can easily see how eliminating another avenue for causing harm, injury, and otherwise interfering with them doing what they're being ordered to do by their superiors is sensible.

Whether it's excessive or insufficient is subjective.

 

[Riteguy]

This is the way it starts out, TFRs in the big city and slowly get bigger until they engulf the suburbs. Then next are the rural areas until the smaller states are covered entirely. TFR go for days and weeks and eventually months and years until they become permanent or indefinite. You can do it in DC, you can do it anywhere. Before you know it, drone flights is heavily restricted nationwide unless you get permission from the government.

You would think Californians could escape TFR's while in populated area by driving out to the desert and flying. Now, there are TFR's out there. Pretty soon, if we keep quiet, our hobby will be gone with no where left to fly.

 

[Droning on and on...]

With close to a million consumer drones in private hands in the U.S., and the majority owned by drooling selfie-snapping idiots, an outright ban has about as much likelihood of compliance and successful enforcement as adherence to VLOS and human and traffic overflight rules.