I've been away for awhile, because of some self imposed censorship, but I am back now to post whenever I feel like.
The last example of fear mongering comes from the NYTimes (which doesn't surprise) and the thing to fear is "Kids With Drones." In two articles in the NY Times today, (here and here), the great news god of the NYT tell us how scary amateurs–like wedding photographers, etc –who own drones are. That they might be used in the commission of (OMG!) pranks!
It seems to me that use of a drone to exercise your first amendment rights, would subject any attempts to curb their use in free expression a constitutional question subject to strict scrutiny under the least restrictive means test. You can't restrict someone's rights to use of their property to disseminate constitutionally protected speech, simply on the whim of a person who is scared–like the authors of the NYT articles clearly are for no good reason–and/or annoyed by the tools that people use to express their constitutional rights.
I am very annoyed by the presence of Pat Robertson and The 700 Club and their endless exercise of their constitutional rights to put their rhetoric out on the airwaves. So, can I have the FCC outlaw television, because annoying people like Robertson and his cronies over at the Christian Broadcasting Network are using TV to disseminate their drivel? No. In the case of drones, the drones are the televisions and are a means to disseminate constitutionally protected speech/expression.
Click on the links in the articles to what the NYT considers as unnecessarily frighting "pranks." In most of those instances, I see other ways of expression manifesting themselves. Short of assault, which some of them seem to cross the line into, I don't see anyway to suppress them legally, either.
Of course the first thing at the top of the page is the video about the drone over the soccer game Balkans. The problem was with the people who, apparently, were upset that others didn't agree with them and took it out physically. The fans rioting just sounds like hooliganism.
PETA is selling drones, although they look about five years behind the curve on technology. Being as they are fixed wing, I am not sure how they could be used to track anyone who was poaching or legally hunting. Or how they could not be harassing wildlife. Flying a drone over a flock of waterfowl to scare them off would be illegal, too. (16 USC §742: j–l Harassing Wildlife; 16 USC §§703, 707 Pursuing a Migratory Bird)
If they are chasing poachers, I wouldn't count on the good will of a criminal not to shoot down their drone. And any drone would be of very limited usefulness in a thickly wooded area. That might be good, though doubt the pilots are skillful enough to keep from hitting a tree, eventually.
The last example of fear mongering comes from the NYTimes (which doesn't surprise) and the thing to fear is "Kids With Drones." In two articles in the NY Times today, (here and here), the great news god of the NYT tell us how scary amateurs–like wedding photographers, etc –who own drones are. That they might be used in the commission of (OMG!) pranks!
It seems to me that use of a drone to exercise your first amendment rights, would subject any attempts to curb their use in free expression a constitutional question subject to strict scrutiny under the least restrictive means test. You can't restrict someone's rights to use of their property to disseminate constitutionally protected speech, simply on the whim of a person who is scared–like the authors of the NYT articles clearly are for no good reason–and/or annoyed by the tools that people use to express their constitutional rights.
I am very annoyed by the presence of Pat Robertson and The 700 Club and their endless exercise of their constitutional rights to put their rhetoric out on the airwaves. So, can I have the FCC outlaw television, because annoying people like Robertson and his cronies over at the Christian Broadcasting Network are using TV to disseminate their drivel? No. In the case of drones, the drones are the televisions and are a means to disseminate constitutionally protected speech/expression.
Click on the links in the articles to what the NYT considers as unnecessarily frighting "pranks." In most of those instances, I see other ways of expression manifesting themselves. Short of assault, which some of them seem to cross the line into, I don't see anyway to suppress them legally, either.
Of course the first thing at the top of the page is the video about the drone over the soccer game Balkans. The problem was with the people who, apparently, were upset that others didn't agree with them and took it out physically. The fans rioting just sounds like hooliganism.
PETA is selling drones, although they look about five years behind the curve on technology. Being as they are fixed wing, I am not sure how they could be used to track anyone who was poaching or legally hunting. Or how they could not be harassing wildlife. Flying a drone over a flock of waterfowl to scare them off would be illegal, too. (16 USC §742: j–l Harassing Wildlife; 16 USC §§703, 707 Pursuing a Migratory Bird)
If they are chasing poachers, I wouldn't count on the good will of a criminal not to shoot down their drone. And any drone would be of very limited usefulness in a thickly wooded area. That might be good, though doubt the pilots are skillful enough to keep from hitting a tree, eventually.
