Photographers Sue Over National Park Filming Permits

Above, Grand Teton National Park. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

Did you know that if you are just a tourist or a news organization, you don't need a permit to photograph or shoot videos within our national parks? But if you are doing so commercially, you need a permit.

That is the crux of a new lawsuit against the National Park Service by two commercial photographers. They claim that the permit requirement violates their First Amendment rights.

According to PetaPixel:

Two photographers have sued the National Park Service (NPS) claiming that its photography permit requirements violate First Amendment rights.

Nature and sports photographers Alexander Rienzie and Connor Burkesmith filed the lawsuit against NPS, with the aim of overturning its “unconstitutional permit-and-fee scheme that charges Americans for the right to film in public spaces.”

According to the lawsuit, Rienzie and Burkesmith wanted to film athlete Michelino Sunseri’s attempt to break the record for the fastest climb up the Grand Teton in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming in September.

The filmmakers planned to have only two or three people, using small handheld cameras and tripods, on the 16-mile route for the shoot — less gear than the typical climber going up the mountain.

Under current law, the NPS does not require everyday visitors or news photographers to have film or photography permits.

To read more, go here. 

SCOTUS Asked To Review California Gun Show Ban

Years ago, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors banned gun shows on county property, i.e., the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds (or Fairplex) in Pomona. This effectively killed the Great Western Gun show, which was the biggest gun show in California.

This ban did not come without a fight as citizens (including myself) attended the Board of Supervisors meetings to oppose this ban. Liberals on the Board passed it.

Since then, the state of California has also banned gun shows on state property. The fight may be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court as it was asked to hear the challenge to the state law.

The Washington Times reported:

A group that organizes gun shows at county fairgrounds in California has asked the Supreme Court to hear a challenge against laws restricting the buying and selling of guns on state property.

One of the laws prohibits anyone to “contract for, author or ally the sale of any firearm or ammunition on the property or in the buildings that comprise the Del Mar Fairgrounds.” Another regulation does the same at the Orange County Fair and Event Center.

The state later expanded its legislation to cover all state-owned land.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the challengers, reasoning the law did not meaningfully burden their constitutional rights.

The pro-gun challengers, including the Second Amendment Foundation, argue that the laws intend to ban gun shows and infringe on the speech that takes place at the events.

If the pro-gun show people prevail in their fight against the state ban, it could conceivably end Los Angeles County's similar ban. We shall see.

To read more, go here.

Facebook Is Still At It

Facebook is still (not that they ever quit) out censoring/removing posts.

I posted my latest blog post on lever guns and they removed it as they claim it violates their community standards on spam. Of course, I requested a review.

This is what they sent me:

 

Democrats Seek To Abolish The First Amendment

The Democrats and their media and social media toadies (think Mark Zuckerberg) have been hell-bent on censoring or "fact-checking" viewpoints contrary to theirs.

They are not even trying to hide it.

They are determined to undermine or, perhaps, destroy the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  

The Washington Examiner has posted an article on how the radical Left is seeking to abolish the First Amendment.

It begins with:

When a political movement’s only guiding principle is an insatiable lust for power, the free exchange of ideas becomes public enemy No. 1. It should come as no surprise that the party that booed God at its national convention and has largely replaced faith with the perverse worship of the state feels that the ends always justify the means.

From author Fran Lebowitz suggesting that President Joe Biden should dissolve the Supreme Court to regime journalists openly calling for the destruction of the U.S. Constitution, Democrats have become increasingly comfortable with publicly displaying their radicalism. In their minds, the enemy is not poverty, inflation, or threats by foreign enemies but freedom itself. As the Left attempts to remake America into a totalitarian, multicultural nightmare, the first two amendments to the Constitution are the only bulwarks standing in its way.

Democrats have been thoroughly defeated on the Second Amendment front. A majority of people can now legally defend their families without a permission slip from the state, and the tens of millions of AR-15, AR-10, and AK-47-style rifles in civilian hands all but guarantee that the gun confiscation plans of authoritarian Democrats are doomed to fail. 

For a variety of reasons, the First Amendment is more difficult to defend. The public has grown accustomed to censorship by the state. Democrats successfully used a coordinated, unconstitutional censorship campaign to win the 2020 presidential election, and they view the continued perversion of the First Amendment, or its outright elimination, as the path forward toward achieving their communistic goals. 

It is imperative that the voters must vote out of office as many radical Democrats as they can and defeat Kamala Harris this November.

To read more, go here. 

Facebook Ridiculousness

Facebook is getting very ridiculous!

I just posted about next week's Nassau, Bahamas weather for next week on my blog and I shared it on my Facebook account. A friend and I are going to take a cruise there next week.

Within minutes, they removed it saying it violated their rules on spam. I then requested a review. It isn't selling anything, it is just talking about the weather forecast for an upcoming trip.

This is one of many such acts Facebook had taken against my posts. They are getting ridiculous. If it weren't for all of my photos and my means of contacting family and friends, I'd leave Facebook. 

The insanity continues at Facebook! The First Amendment doesn't exist there.

SCOTUS Hands NRA Major First Amendment Victory

On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court handed a major victory for Second Amendment's rights under the First Amendment in National Rifle Association v, Vullo.

Sounds complicated? Actually it's not. 

From the Washington Examiner:

Since the minute it was ratified, the First Amendment has been as clear as water on one thing: Government officials may not use their power to punish or abridge political viewpoints.

That’s the whole point of the “speech” part of the amendment.

Because power-hungry functionaries keep refusing to abide by that bright-line rule, the Supreme Court periodically steps in to remind us. That’s what it did on May 30 in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, when all nine justices ruled that Maria Vullo, former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, improperly pressured insurance companies and banks to deny the NRA access to their services.

The case wasn’t complicated. Vullo found a minor infraction in insurance that Lloyd’s of London and Chubb Limited had underwritten, through which the NRA provided its members access to insurance. Vullo then told Lloyd’s officials she wouldn’t penalize the company if it agreed to stop underwriting all firearm-related policies and substantially scaled back its NRA business.

Then, in a guidance letter to all entities regulated by her department, Vullo specifically discouraged them from doing business with the NRA and to consider “reputational risks” involved in doing so. In a joint press release with then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Vullo went even further, “urging all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York” to “discontinue their arrangement with the NRA.” Vullo’s department entered consent decrees with Lloyd’s and Chubb in which the latter agreed to not provide insurance through the NRA, even if otherwise lawful.

Vullo also made clear to Lloyd’s that she wanted to hobble all gun groups, and that (to quote the case syllabus) “she would ‘focus’ her enforcement actions ‘solely’ on the syndicates with ties to the NRA, and ‘ignore other syndicates writing similar policies.'”

Vullo’s actions were obviously coercive. If all the facts as presented in this case are found to be accurate when the case goes back to lower courts, then Vullo “used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA’s business partners.”

All nine justices rightly considered this case not according to their like or dislike of the NRA, but as a matter of First Amendment protection. The unanimous decision was written by left-leaning Justice Sonia Sotomayor, even though her jurisprudence consistently approves of gun control. The unanimity indicates how strong a First Amendment case this was, and of how important that amendment is. 

To read more, go here. 

Major 2nd Amendment Victory In Circuit Court

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (sometimes referred to as the "Ninth Circus") or at least a three-judge panel of it, got this one right.

The following is definitely a Second Amendment (and First Amendment) victory.

MSM reported:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request to rehear a ruling that found California’s ban on gun advertisements in junior sports magazines likely unconstitutional.

The decision was made by a three-judge panel, stating that the ban does not directly reduce gun violence among youth and violates the First Amendment by restricting truthful advertisements about lawful gun use.

The panel’s conclusion was “that because California permits minors under supervision to possess and use firearms for hunting and other lawful activities, [the Marketing Firearms to Minors Law] facially regulates speech that concerns lawful activity and is not misleading,” Judge Kenneth Lee said.

To read more, go here. 

ACLU Defends Representation of NRA Before SCOTUS

It has been said that politics makes strange bedfellows. 

In the case involving the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Rifle Association, the Bill of Rights, specifically, the First Amendment, has them joining together before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ACLU is joining the NRA's case at SCOTUS over violations of their First Amendment rights, which has caused a backlash by radical leftist gun control groups.

Mediate reported:

The ACLU announced on Saturday its decision to represent the NRA in a major First Amendment case before the United States Supreme Court, and offered defense on social media for doing so after backlash from gun control advocates and even its own New York chapter.

The American Civil Liberties Union shared on X (formerly Twitter) the breaking news on Saturday that it will be representing the National Rifle Association in a First Amendment case at the Supreme Court.

BREAKING: We’re representing the NRA at the Supreme Court in their case against New York’s Department of Financial Services for abusing its regulatory power to violate the NRA’s First Amendment rights.

The government can’t blacklist an advocacy group because of its viewpoint.

— ACLU (@ACLU) December 9, 2023

To read more, go here. 

NM Sen. Carrie Hamblen and the "Soviet Fashion Show"

A little while ago, I was reading the Piñon Post article on some left-wing New Mexico state senators who complained that the New Mexico State University allowed a Young America's Foundation speaker, Matt Walsh, back in April.

The article begins with:

A recent appearance by Matt Walsh at New Mexico State University (NMSU) has sparked controversy, prompting two New Mexico state senators to call for a review of the university’s policies that allowed Walsh to speak on campus.

Democratic State Senators Carrie Hamblen and William Soules, along with seven other government officials, including state, county, and municipal representatives, jointly penned a letter addressed to the interim president of the NMSU Board of Regents. The letter, which was reported by Young America’s Foundation, expressed their profound disappointment regarding Walsh’s presence at a Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) event held on campus in April.

In the letter, Walsh was accused of “encouraging violence” and “spouting racist and pro-slavery rhetoric.” The officials also alleged that Walsh had “minimized accusations against known pedophiles and child abusers,” though they provided no substantiation for this accusation.

This photo of Senator Hamblen accompanied the article:

The photo struck me as hilarious as it reminded me of the very humorous 1985 Wendy's commercial of a "Soviet fashion show". Sen. Hamblin looks like the woman M.C. in the commercial.

Here's the commercial:

See the resemblance?

As the Wendy's commercial pointed out, people want choices and Sen. Hamblen doesn't want the NMSU students to have choices in political speakers with differing views, just like the Soviet Union. The left are spouting untruths in their letter. Thankfully, the university is resisting these leftist lunatics. Kudos to them!

As Janet commented on the article stated:

It’s a sad statement of where New Mexico is headed when you have members of the legislature choose to forget the fact they swore to uphold the Constitution. Why are they so afraid? I have to wonder about the mental stability of some elected officials in the state. Communism is on the horizon in NM.

To read the full article, go here.

Gang of Biden Staffers Who Stifled Speech On Social Media

The censorship of social media posts at Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other sites by the Biden Administration is no surprise to those of us who had been censored and shadow-banned.

But a recent lawsuit against the Biden Administration led a federal judge to "out" the Biden staffers who conducted violations of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

The Washington Times reported (some snippets):

A federal judge who excoriated the Biden administration for pressuring social media platforms to censor Americans’ speech shined a light on a group of obscure but powerful White House staffers who leaned on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other sites to remove posts and ban users whose content they opposed.

U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty, acting on a lawsuit filed against the Biden administration by two states and a group of plaintiffs, said the case “arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

Court documents show that while top Biden administration officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci sought publicly and privately to censor social media posts over COVID-19 content, the task was more extensively carried out behind the scenes by a select band of staffers. 

The effort began almost as soon as Mr. Biden entered the White House with a Jan. 23, 2021, email from Clarke Humphrey, then the digital director for the administration‘s COVID-19 response team.

Mr. Humphrey emailed Twitter officials at 1 a.m. on Mr. Biden’s third day in office and asked them to remove a tweet posted a day earlier by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that suggested, without evidence, that the death of Hank Aaron, 86, could be tied to the coronavirus vaccine. 

The job of policing social media appeared to fall mostly to Mr. Humphrey’s White House colleague, Rob Flaherty, who recently left the administration, reportedly to take a job in President Biden’s reelection campaign.

While Mr. Flaherty strong-armed Twitter and Facebook to cooperate with the White House, another staffer, Andy Slavitt, ramped up the effort by threatening the social media platforms with federal action. 

Carol Crawford, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s digital media director, also helped carry out the White House‘s censorship scheme. 

To read the full article, go here. 

Biden's DOJ Targeting Parents

Parents are being harassed by the Department of Justice for protesting against Critical Race Theory and mask mandates at school board meetings.

People are only exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech. The actions by the Department of Justice is right out the totalitarian playbook

The New York Post reported:

Parents and politicians are slamming the Department of Justice’s decision to bring in the FBI to investigate a spike in “threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff,” saying the Biden administration is likening their protests of “woke” policies such as Critical Race Theory — as well as mandatory mask wearing — to “domestic terrorism.”

“Dear @TheJusticeDept Merrick Garland and @FBI Director Christopher Wray,” Asra Nomani, vice president of investigations and strategy at Parents Defending Education, posted on Twitter. “This is what a domestic terrorist looks like? You are criminalizing parenting, and you owe the people of America a swift apology.”

She sarcastically signed the missive, “‘Domestic Terrorist,’ Asra Nomani.”

Nomani’s group has been researching how school boards across the US implement “woke” ideas into curricula, such as critical race theory. 

In recent months, dozens of parents have taken a stand in school board meetings against the teaching of Critical Race Theory in classrooms and to protest mask mandates, causing some to wonder what the FBI and DOJ are actually investigating. 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has joined the fray by posting the above Tweet on Twitter.

To read more, go here.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CAN’T ASK FOR COMMERCIAL FILMING FEES/PERMITS

Above, an eruption of Old Faithful Geyser at Yellowstone National Park. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

For years, I've seen notices on national parks literature stating that permits are needed for commercial filming and that fees have to paid.

Not anymore! A federal judge ruled that permits and fees for commercial filming in national parks violate the First Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional.

DIYPhotography reported:

Filmmakers, rejoice: thanks to a court case from 2019, you may no longer need to get a permit and pay fees for commercial shoots in national parks. D.C. federal judge has just made the decision, ruling that it’s unconstitutional for the National Park Service to require a permit and charge you with fees.

It all started in late 2018 when director Gordon Price was shooting his feature film Crawford Road. He was filming in Yorktown Battlefield in Colonial National Historical Park, Virginia without a permit, so two NPS officers issued him a citation, Hollywood Reporter writes. The same source reports that Price argued that the citation was amounted to “content-based prior restraints.”

In December 2019, Price sued the U.S. Attorney General (then William Barr), Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt, and Deputy Director of the National Park Service David Vela. As you probably know, you don’t pay a fee or need a permit for shooting in areas where the public is generally allowed. But in other locations, or if you use models or props, the situation changes. Also, news-gathering generally doesn’t require a permit. In his lawsuit, Price argued that the statute was “facially unconstitutional because it targets First Amendment activity.”

To read more, go here. 

Parler Coming Back!

The leftist Big Tech overlords tried to kill Parler, but they won't succeed.

It is coming back!

From their website:

 

The Evil Empire Strikes Back!

Above, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.

The crackdown of civil liberties is coming. That’s what we told you yesterday. It didn’t take long. It’s here. And it’s unprecedented. Just days after Donald Trump called for breaking up the big tech monopolies in order to preserve democracy, the big tech monopolies have silenced him. - Tucker Carlson, Fox News.

Today's actions by left-wing Big Tech in permanently shutting down President Trump's Twitter account is not necessary surprising. It is not right nor fair. That was only the start.

Twitter is also banning other conservative voices.

What is surprising (at least to me) is that Apple has now booted Parler.com from its Apple app store. Right now, it still works on Google Chrome. I joined Parler earlier today.

YouTube is also banning conservative videos.

Since the Democrats will control the congress and the presidency, they feel free to do what they want without any penalty. 

I don't know who broke into the U.S. Capitol and rioted two days ago, whether it was pro-Trump protesters or Antifa, anarchists or a combination of each, but to ban the President from Twitter and accusing him of inciting the riots is beyond the pale.

We should start a fundraising effort for a massive class action lawsuit against these tech giants.

If you can, join Parler and Rumble (the alternative to YouTube).

The actions by Big Tech is nothing less than a totalitarianism crackdown on political opponents of the Democrat left-wing.

Poland: $2.2 Million Fines For Removing Lawful Free Speech

While our so-called conservative Republican Party dithers over infringements on our free speech rights by leftist Democrats and their social media masters, Poland is taking a different approach.

The Federalist posted: 

(Newswars)  A new law set to be passed in Poland would fine social media companies $2.2 million a pop for censoring lawful free speech.

While numerous western countries are seeking to impose heavy fines on the likes of Facebook and Twitter for failing to remove “hateful” content, Poland is taking a very different approach.

“Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law,” reports Poland In.

“In the event of removal or blockage, a complaint can be sent to the platform, which will have 24 hours to consider it. Within 48 hours of the decision, the user will be able to file a petition to the court for the return of access. The court will consider complaints within seven days of receipt and the entire process is to be electronic.”

We need this here!

To read more, go here. 

Reagan Warned Us About Democrats In 1964

In 1964, speaking on behalf of Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan warned us about the Democrats.

Today, around the country, Democrats are hell-bent on taking away our Second Amendment rights in the name of "security". They are enacting "red flag" laws, a gun confiscation scheme in the name of "security" and "safety". They are also trying to curb our free speech rights. "Red Flag" laws are also a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizures). Recently, Virginia Democrat Delegate Jeffrey Bourne introduced House Bill 1627, which would essentially make criticism of government officials a criminal offense. What's going on in Virginia, New Mexico and other states are perfect examples.

Many Democrats have come "out of the closet" to openly advocate socialism.

Here, in this clip from Reagan's "A Time For Choosing Speech", he describes what the Democrats are all about.

David Hogg Logic

Free Speech and "Elderly"

Above, another reason to despise the United Nations.

A German woman was fined for liking a post on Facebook that was anti-immigrant.

It appears that Germans don't have free speech rights, even on Facebook.

Heatstreet wrote:

An elderly German woman was fined 1,350 euros for sharing and liking an anti-migrant joke on Facebook. 

The 62-year old woman, who lives in Berlin, has been identified as Jutta B. She had her home raided and was arrested by police for the ‘crime’ of sharing an image on Facebook captioned “Do you have anything against refugees?” 

The image, which was deemed offensive by the court, included answers such as “Yes, machine guns and hand grenades” and was shared by more than 500 people. One person who also shared the picture reported the elderly woman to the police.

Wouldn't our liberals love to be able to have Facebook posts they don't like have people prosecuted and fined? Thank goodness we have free speech protections.

But there's one thing that is, uh, offensive about the article. Note that the German woman is referred to as "elderly". She's only 62 years old! That's elderly?!

My "honorary sister" sent me the article and I made mention that the woman was our age. She noticed that as well and is "duly offended".

To read more, go here.