Editorial: Forest Service plan amounts to censorship of the press

The U.S. Forest Service has decided it needs to beef up the protection of wilderness areas by forcing journalists to buy permits and get permission to snap photos. And if officials don’t like proposed story ideas, they can turn down requests.

But first the agency wants public comment on the proposal. Here’s ours:

Have you read the First Amendment? Are you kidding?

Apparently, the agency is not, according to an article published Tuesday in the Oregonian. As the Portland-based newspaper reported:

“Under rules being finalized in November, a reporter who met a biologist, wildlife advocate or whistleblower alleging neglect in any of the nation’s 100 million acres of wilderness would first need special approval to shoot photos or videos even on an iPhone. Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don’t get a permit could face fines up to $1,000.”

Rich Landers, The Spokesman-Review’s outdoors editor, has been reporting and photographing in wilderness areas for three decades, and he’s never heard of anything like it. He called the rule “unbelievable.”

So what happened to prompt such a draconian move? Nothing in particular. Liz Close, the Forest Service’s acting wilderness director, didn’t mention any specific problems in the Oregonian article. But she did say, “It’s not a problem, it’s a responsibility. We have to follow the statutory requirements.”

The statute in question is the Wilderness Act of 1964. One would think something untoward would have to happen before locking down media coverage five decades into a law.

The rules are particularly obnoxious because they seem bent on producing only positive coverage. The rules would not apply for breaking news, such as a forest fire. But if there were potential for portraying the wilderness in a negative light, a bureaucrat could deny access.

No doubt other government agencies would love to censor the news in such a fashion, but none have had the chutzpah to propose a formal rule to that effect.

“It’s pretty clearly unconstitutional,” Gregg Leslie, legal defense director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Virginia, told the Oregonian. “They would have to show an important need to justify these limits, and they just can’t.”

The Wilderness Act of 1964 is clear in stating that wilderness not be used for commercial purposes. For instance, sending film crews into pristine areas to film a new car perched atop an outcropping. That’s obviously disruptive and could alter an untamed landscape. But what damage is caused by a reporter using a camera or phone to snap a photo?

The Forest Service told the (Salem) Statesman-Journal that the rule was designed to establish a uniform set of guidelines. The problem is that it lumps advertising with journalism, and it allows bureaucrats to squelch the news by calling it “negative.”

Journalism and the wilderness law have lived in harmony for 50 years. Proponents of this rule should take note or take a hike.