SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
No Photos, Please: New Wyoming Laws Stifle Freedom of Speech and Make Citizen Science Illegal
Jonathan Ratner has been tracking water quality on public lands in Wyoming for more than a decade. As Wyoming director of the green group Western Watersheds Project, or WWP, it's his job. But dipping a sample bottle into a river may now be illegal--thanks to a pair of new laws Governor Matthew Mead signed in March.
Oct 24, 2015
Jonathan Ratner has been tracking water quality on public lands in Wyoming for more than a decade. As Wyoming director of the green group Western Watersheds Project, or WWP, it's his job. But dipping a sample bottle into a river may now be illegal--thanks to a pair of new laws Governor Matthew Mead signed in March.
It is now criminal in the state to collect data on "open lands"--all private, public, or federal lands outside of towns--if the gatherer plans to pass along the info to the government and does not have express authorization to do so. This means everything from photos of the Grand Tetons to E. coli samples from streams to air-quality measurements near drilling sites is a no-no. Opponents say the legislation is an egregious attack on freedom of speech and citizen science.
Ratner continues to test the water--just not in Wyoming, where his actions could cost him $5,000 in fines and up to a year in prison. "Jonathan now has had to drive to do work elsewhere, in Colorado and Utah," says Travis Bruner, WWP's executive director. "Our data collection has suffered as a result and so has public interest."
Legislators created the laws in direct response to WWP's work. The group uncovered water pollution and federal grazing violations that prompted regulators to add three streams to a list of water bodies violating state environmental-quality standards.
"If you listened to the legislative debates, it was clear: They expressly are trying to quash data collection," says Michael Wall, staff attorney at NRDC (disclosure).
"It's insidious. It's aimed at using the authority of the state to prevent people from protecting themselves. And it's unconstitutional--it's pretty squarely prohibited by the First Amendment."
The laws' broad implications have prompted NRDC and other opponents, including conservationists, academics, members of the press, and animal-protection advocates, to file suit in federal court last month in an attempt to strike it down.
Green groups are concerned they won't be able to gather data that could reveal environmental ills. NRDC, for instance, has had to postpone air-quality sampling near oil and gas operations in Wyoming while moving ahead with the work in neighboring Montana, says Wall. PETA, meanwhile, says it prevents the organization--and whistleblowers--from exposing animal-cruelty practices (Wyoming has 1.3 million head of cattle). "We believe broadly in consumers' right to know how their food is produced," says Cristina Stella, a staff attorney at the Center for Food Safety. The National Press Photographers Association said Wyoming has "unjustifiably put photojournalists at risk of civil suit and criminal prosecution" and that the laws are a "blatant violation of constitutionally protected freedoms of the press that are the hallmark of this nation."
Mead signed the bill into law because he believes in private property rights--whether it's agricultural land or a city lot-- and he believes this legislation strengthens those rights," a spokesman for the governor's office told Courthouse News.
The Wyoming federal court challenge follows on the heels of a federal judge's ruling in August that Idaho's pro-agribusiness law, which barred the secret recording of livestock, is unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment. It was the first ag-gag law to be declared unconstitutional. But there are still laws in Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and North Carolina that make it illegal for activists to smuggle cameras into industrial animal operations.
Wyoming's law, meanwhile, has a much broader scope and is aimed more squarely at public lands, says Stella of the Center for Food Safety, which was a plaintiff in the Idaho case as well.
Even if Wyoming's laws are ruled unconstitutional, as opponents widely expect, the fight against legislation that tramples free speech and other fundamental constitutional rights--and put habitat, wildlife, and human health at risk--is far from over.
"States are clamoring to get these passed," says Stella. "It feels like playing Whac-A-Mole--strike one down in one state and another pops up in another state." So citizen scientists, get your mallets ready.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Alisa Opar
Alisa Opar is Earthwire's Western correspondent. She is also the articles editor at Audubon magazine, and has written for many publications about science and the environment.
Jonathan Ratner has been tracking water quality on public lands in Wyoming for more than a decade. As Wyoming director of the green group Western Watersheds Project, or WWP, it's his job. But dipping a sample bottle into a river may now be illegal--thanks to a pair of new laws Governor Matthew Mead signed in March.
It is now criminal in the state to collect data on "open lands"--all private, public, or federal lands outside of towns--if the gatherer plans to pass along the info to the government and does not have express authorization to do so. This means everything from photos of the Grand Tetons to E. coli samples from streams to air-quality measurements near drilling sites is a no-no. Opponents say the legislation is an egregious attack on freedom of speech and citizen science.
Ratner continues to test the water--just not in Wyoming, where his actions could cost him $5,000 in fines and up to a year in prison. "Jonathan now has had to drive to do work elsewhere, in Colorado and Utah," says Travis Bruner, WWP's executive director. "Our data collection has suffered as a result and so has public interest."
Legislators created the laws in direct response to WWP's work. The group uncovered water pollution and federal grazing violations that prompted regulators to add three streams to a list of water bodies violating state environmental-quality standards.
"If you listened to the legislative debates, it was clear: They expressly are trying to quash data collection," says Michael Wall, staff attorney at NRDC (disclosure).
"It's insidious. It's aimed at using the authority of the state to prevent people from protecting themselves. And it's unconstitutional--it's pretty squarely prohibited by the First Amendment."
The laws' broad implications have prompted NRDC and other opponents, including conservationists, academics, members of the press, and animal-protection advocates, to file suit in federal court last month in an attempt to strike it down.
Green groups are concerned they won't be able to gather data that could reveal environmental ills. NRDC, for instance, has had to postpone air-quality sampling near oil and gas operations in Wyoming while moving ahead with the work in neighboring Montana, says Wall. PETA, meanwhile, says it prevents the organization--and whistleblowers--from exposing animal-cruelty practices (Wyoming has 1.3 million head of cattle). "We believe broadly in consumers' right to know how their food is produced," says Cristina Stella, a staff attorney at the Center for Food Safety. The National Press Photographers Association said Wyoming has "unjustifiably put photojournalists at risk of civil suit and criminal prosecution" and that the laws are a "blatant violation of constitutionally protected freedoms of the press that are the hallmark of this nation."
Mead signed the bill into law because he believes in private property rights--whether it's agricultural land or a city lot-- and he believes this legislation strengthens those rights," a spokesman for the governor's office told Courthouse News.
The Wyoming federal court challenge follows on the heels of a federal judge's ruling in August that Idaho's pro-agribusiness law, which barred the secret recording of livestock, is unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment. It was the first ag-gag law to be declared unconstitutional. But there are still laws in Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and North Carolina that make it illegal for activists to smuggle cameras into industrial animal operations.
Wyoming's law, meanwhile, has a much broader scope and is aimed more squarely at public lands, says Stella of the Center for Food Safety, which was a plaintiff in the Idaho case as well.
Even if Wyoming's laws are ruled unconstitutional, as opponents widely expect, the fight against legislation that tramples free speech and other fundamental constitutional rights--and put habitat, wildlife, and human health at risk--is far from over.
"States are clamoring to get these passed," says Stella. "It feels like playing Whac-A-Mole--strike one down in one state and another pops up in another state." So citizen scientists, get your mallets ready.
Alisa Opar
Alisa Opar is Earthwire's Western correspondent. She is also the articles editor at Audubon magazine, and has written for many publications about science and the environment.
Jonathan Ratner has been tracking water quality on public lands in Wyoming for more than a decade. As Wyoming director of the green group Western Watersheds Project, or WWP, it's his job. But dipping a sample bottle into a river may now be illegal--thanks to a pair of new laws Governor Matthew Mead signed in March.
It is now criminal in the state to collect data on "open lands"--all private, public, or federal lands outside of towns--if the gatherer plans to pass along the info to the government and does not have express authorization to do so. This means everything from photos of the Grand Tetons to E. coli samples from streams to air-quality measurements near drilling sites is a no-no. Opponents say the legislation is an egregious attack on freedom of speech and citizen science.
Ratner continues to test the water--just not in Wyoming, where his actions could cost him $5,000 in fines and up to a year in prison. "Jonathan now has had to drive to do work elsewhere, in Colorado and Utah," says Travis Bruner, WWP's executive director. "Our data collection has suffered as a result and so has public interest."
Legislators created the laws in direct response to WWP's work. The group uncovered water pollution and federal grazing violations that prompted regulators to add three streams to a list of water bodies violating state environmental-quality standards.
"If you listened to the legislative debates, it was clear: They expressly are trying to quash data collection," says Michael Wall, staff attorney at NRDC (disclosure).
"It's insidious. It's aimed at using the authority of the state to prevent people from protecting themselves. And it's unconstitutional--it's pretty squarely prohibited by the First Amendment."
The laws' broad implications have prompted NRDC and other opponents, including conservationists, academics, members of the press, and animal-protection advocates, to file suit in federal court last month in an attempt to strike it down.
Green groups are concerned they won't be able to gather data that could reveal environmental ills. NRDC, for instance, has had to postpone air-quality sampling near oil and gas operations in Wyoming while moving ahead with the work in neighboring Montana, says Wall. PETA, meanwhile, says it prevents the organization--and whistleblowers--from exposing animal-cruelty practices (Wyoming has 1.3 million head of cattle). "We believe broadly in consumers' right to know how their food is produced," says Cristina Stella, a staff attorney at the Center for Food Safety. The National Press Photographers Association said Wyoming has "unjustifiably put photojournalists at risk of civil suit and criminal prosecution" and that the laws are a "blatant violation of constitutionally protected freedoms of the press that are the hallmark of this nation."
Mead signed the bill into law because he believes in private property rights--whether it's agricultural land or a city lot-- and he believes this legislation strengthens those rights," a spokesman for the governor's office told Courthouse News.
The Wyoming federal court challenge follows on the heels of a federal judge's ruling in August that Idaho's pro-agribusiness law, which barred the secret recording of livestock, is unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment. It was the first ag-gag law to be declared unconstitutional. But there are still laws in Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and North Carolina that make it illegal for activists to smuggle cameras into industrial animal operations.
Wyoming's law, meanwhile, has a much broader scope and is aimed more squarely at public lands, says Stella of the Center for Food Safety, which was a plaintiff in the Idaho case as well.
Even if Wyoming's laws are ruled unconstitutional, as opponents widely expect, the fight against legislation that tramples free speech and other fundamental constitutional rights--and put habitat, wildlife, and human health at risk--is far from over.
"States are clamoring to get these passed," says Stella. "It feels like playing Whac-A-Mole--strike one down in one state and another pops up in another state." So citizen scientists, get your mallets ready.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.