A view of the 1,234-square-mile Joshua Tree National Park is seen April 7, 2008, in southeastern California. A large part of the park is designated to wilderness area. Gabriel Bouys\/AFP\/Getty Images<\/p>\n
SEATTLE -- The U.S. Forest Service is proposing permanent new rules that would require media organizations to obtain a permit to film and shoot photographs in more than 100 million acres of the nation's wilderness. <\/p>\n
Under the plan, the Forest Service would consider the nature of a proposed project before approving a special use permit then charge fees of up to $1,500 for commercial filming and photography in federally designated wilderness areas. <\/p>\n
Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, said such rules would be a clear violation of the First Amendment and raises concerns about press freedom, including whether denying a permit would amount to prior restraint. <\/p>\n
\"What if they deny you a permit because they don't like the story you're working on?\" he asked. <\/p>\n
Liz Close, the Forest Service's acting wilderness director, said the Wilderness Act of 1964 prohibits commercial enterprise in wilderness. <\/p>\n
The rules exclude breaking news situations, defined as \"an event or incident that arises suddenly, evolves quickly, and rapidly ceases to be newsworthy.\" <\/p>\n
But Osterreicher said the agency ignores big distinctions between editorial and commercial use and also should not be allowed to define what constitutes breaking news. <\/p>\n
\"We're headed down a really slippery slope if we allowed the government to include editorial and news gathering activities in commercial use,\" he said. <\/p>\n
Close said the current rules have been in place for 48 months, and the proposal released this month would make those guidelines permanent. Public comments are due by Nov. 3. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original here: A view of the 1,234-square-mile Joshua Tree National Park is seen April 7, 2008, in southeastern California. Continue reading
\nWilderness proposal sparks First Amendment fight<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"