March 29, 2022 - A federal judge overturned the state of Texas’ stringent drone restrictions today, holding that it was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
Texas drone law overturned after judge rules for NPPA in federal lawsuit
- Thread starter Jagerbomb52
- Start date
Is there a Cliff's Notes for this? LOLMarch 29, 2022 - A federal judge overturned the state of Texas’ stringent drone restrictions today, holding that it was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
spsphotos
Well-Known Member
I read the first few pages and it seems to be this:
Texas had one law that allowed private citizens to sue drone operators if they were using UAV's to take images of them or their property for surveillance. The primary issue was that they did not define surveillance or make proper exemptions for journalists, etc.
The other law was about not flying over 400ft, over certain (long list) of critical infrastructures like prisons, oil refineries, oil wells, and many others. The issue there was that it was redundant and tried to override existing FAA regulations.
That's a very simple summary as I understand it. Vic should definitely weigh it as I'm sure he's aware of the suit.
Texas had one law that allowed private citizens to sue drone operators if they were using UAV's to take images of them or their property for surveillance. The primary issue was that they did not define surveillance or make proper exemptions for journalists, etc.
The other law was about not flying over 400ft, over certain (long list) of critical infrastructures like prisons, oil refineries, oil wells, and many others. The issue there was that it was redundant and tried to override existing FAA regulations.
That's a very simple summary as I understand it. Vic should definitely weigh it as I'm sure he's aware of the suit.
The National Press Photographers Association has a short summary at Texas drone law overturned after judge rules for NPPA in federal lawsuit. This is a big deal, and anyone who does any news photography--either as a staff photographer or a freelancer--should join NPPA and support their work. I'm just sorry this ruling didn't come last week when I was driving through Texas!
spsphotos
Well-Known Member
Much better explanation than mine. LOL
But not to worry, the clowns at the State legislature will no doubt address the issues and create an even worse law. LOL
orionshooter
Well-Known Member
As a retired lawyer, I am reading this opinion with great interest. I am hoping to find some support for the notion that NO one except the FAA controls the airspace above their property thereby nullifying any attempts to prohibit flyovers by local govts. I‘m halfway through it and will post if I find anything.
In the meantime, I found this particular nugget funny enough to snort uncontrollably. The case against the govt. was brought by news media types who predictably (and justifiably) claim that the flight restrictions are a violation of their 1st amendment rights both to free speech and freedom of the press. Now here’s the hilarious part of the governments response to that 1st amendment claim:
Paraphrasing here: Yo judge, the 1st amendment doesn’t apply here because the framers of the constitution could not possibly have envisioned the use of drones when they declared both freedom of speech and the press!!!
I don’t think you have to be a lawyer or a constitutional scholar to see how ridiculous that reasoning is. After all, I’m sure the framers of our constitution didn’t envision telephones or the internet. Following this ridiculous logic by the government, free speech shouldn’t apply to those communications either. And by extension, I suppose we also should limit the 2nd Amendment’s protection to muskets because after all, that’s the only firearm type the drafters could “envision.” Hell while we are at it, the FAA’s jurisdiction in the skies is also at risk because who woulda knew we could make things fly justifying control of the National airspace.
Ok, soap box safely stowed in the overhead compartment - here’s the actual text found at the top of page 17 in case you are like me and have to see it to believe it.
“Defendants claim that drone photography cannot be entitled to First Amendment protections because it was not contemplated by the Framers when they drafted the protections for expression and the press.“
In the meantime, I found this particular nugget funny enough to snort uncontrollably. The case against the govt. was brought by news media types who predictably (and justifiably) claim that the flight restrictions are a violation of their 1st amendment rights both to free speech and freedom of the press. Now here’s the hilarious part of the governments response to that 1st amendment claim:
Paraphrasing here: Yo judge, the 1st amendment doesn’t apply here because the framers of the constitution could not possibly have envisioned the use of drones when they declared both freedom of speech and the press!!!
I don’t think you have to be a lawyer or a constitutional scholar to see how ridiculous that reasoning is. After all, I’m sure the framers of our constitution didn’t envision telephones or the internet. Following this ridiculous logic by the government, free speech shouldn’t apply to those communications either. And by extension, I suppose we also should limit the 2nd Amendment’s protection to muskets because after all, that’s the only firearm type the drafters could “envision.” Hell while we are at it, the FAA’s jurisdiction in the skies is also at risk because who woulda knew we could make things fly justifying control of the National airspace.
Ok, soap box safely stowed in the overhead compartment - here’s the actual text found at the top of page 17 in case you are like me and have to see it to believe it.
“Defendants claim that drone photography cannot be entitled to First Amendment protections because it was not contemplated by the Framers when they drafted the protections for expression and the press.“
orionshooter
Well-Known Member
After finishing my reading, I’m sad to say this case did not address the airspace rights issue but was instead limited to the free speech and press issues implicated by the 1st Amendment.
I‘m still hoping the right facts/case will come along to clarify the issue of who can control the airspace.
I‘m still hoping the right facts/case will come along to clarify the issue of who can control the airspace.
StantonZ
Well-Known Member
I'm not so sure this is the problem...since the FAA sets the rules/regulations for drones (whether recreational or Part 107). I have had one (recent) incident where this seemed relevant.
I was flying my drone between apartment buildings (imagine 2 high-rise buildings separated by a park area--empty--that I was in) when I was approached by a "security guard" from one of the buildings (just so happens it was the one I don't live in). He told me I couldn't fly my drone near "his" building; I told him he doesn't own/control the airspace around "his" building. I assured him that I wasn't interested in taking photos/video of any occupants of "his" building...and we parted amicably.
Am I right/wrong?
orionshooter
Well-Known Member
We can only wish all such encounters end the way you describe. The reality is they don’t and they won’t. A police officer will not be so easily put off and neither will the Barney Fyfe types attempting to enforce self declared no fly zones over parks, designated open space and anywhere else govt minions like to meddle even when neither the pilot or the aircraft touch a single blade of grass. Personally, this is a huge issue for me.
Speaking to your point directly, the REAL problem is that local governments see nothing wrong with “sharing” regulation and enforcement of the national air space with the FAA when it is in their interest to do so. Legally, this is impermissible because the federal government has preempted regulation of airborne aircraft.
From a legal perspective, ownership and control of airspace up to 400 feet is not settled law. It’s going to take time for the right case with the right energy to come along and get this done.
ScottTX
Well-Known Member
ScottTX
Well-Known Member
"The primary issue was that they did not define surveillance" - "Surveillance" vs. "Incidental" would be interesting to prove. (Fortunately)
orionshooter
Well-Known Member
I agree Scott - any victory on any grounds in favor of our rights to responsibly use airspace is good news.Well, I'm still happy with this ruling - An incremental victory
One question, though, is who owns the park. If the park is privately owned by the apartment building corporation, they have a right to restrict the use of their property. If they prohibit done operations, you could not takeoff, land, or operate from the park. In that case, if you were outside the park on public property but overflying the park, you should be OK. Note that some government jurisdictions also have prohibitions of drone operation in public parks.
orionshooter
Well-Known Member
I agree Jim. The problem I’m specifically concerned with is the exercise of control in the airspace above ground. Whether the property is owned by a private individual or a city/county entity should not matter. In Stanton’s example, it seems that he was piloting while actually on the property. That’s a whole different kettle of fish - which I think the property owner has an inherent right to control.
Yes, you can no longer get in trouble if you photograph private property.
It is a good ruling for freedom.
StantonZ
Well-Known Member
The park (in between the buildings) is sort of a "neutral" site, so I don't know if that clarifies anything. However, that brings up another (interesting) scenario: I sometimes take-off from my apartment building and fly...which may explain why they never approached me then (they can't enter my property). The plot thickens...
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
-
-
-
Dji mini SE gimbal suddenly works, then doesn't- Started by flyingwithkris
- Replies: 2
Forum statistics
