In its lawsuit, the plaintiffs - which also included the Texas Press Association and Joseph Pappalardo, an independent journalist based in Texas - alleged that the provisions were “unconstitutionally vague and overbroad” because the terms “surveillance” and “commercial purpose” were not defined. That set of provisions also included a set of exemptions - including those for “commercial purposes” - but not for journalism. The second set of provisions imposed criminal penalties for flying a drone over a correctional facility, detention facility or sports venue at less than 400 feet. While that portion of the law included exemptions for certain purposes - such as scholarly research - it didn’t exempt news gathering. The first imposed civil and criminal penalties on people who use drones to create images of an individual or privately owned property with the “intent to conduct surveillance.” Lawmakers claimed the law would protect Texans’ privacy. The lawĬhapter 423, which the Legislature passed in 2013 and amended in 2015, had two sets of provisions. “Judge Pitman entered an opinion that carefully considers every issue, exhaustively reviews precedent, and holds decisively that drone photography is fully protected by the First Amendment as an integral tool in 21st century journalism,” Jim Hemphill, an Austin-based lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement Tuesday. The National Press Photographers Association - one of the trade groups that filed the lawsuit - heralded Pitman’s decision. Representatives for each of those agencies were named as defendants in the lawsuit. He prohibited the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Texas Highway Patrol and the Hays County District Attorney’s Office from enforcing those portions of the law. “The process of creating the images finds just as much protection in the First Amendment as the images themselves do.”
“Defendants urge an improperly narrow understanding of the Constitution that is without support in the law,” Pitman wrote in his opinion. On : Texas search group, FAA at odds over drone use In his opinion, District Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas in Austin ruled that several portions of law were overly broad and vague, therefore violating the First Amendment. Among those who alleged in depositions that the law restricted their ability to do their jobs is Billy Calzada, a photographer for the San Antonio Express-News who was threatened with arrest after using a drone to photograph the aftermath of a fatal fire in San Marcos.
0 kommentar(er)
