• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US State Makes It Illegal To Collect Evidence Of Pollution On Public Property

Chomsky said:
Fair enough.

But occasionally there are legit problems.

And I can think of no better watchdogs than a vigilant citizenry and diligent press. It's why as a kid I sought out my local heros of Mike Royko & Studs Terkel, and got to meet both in real life.

And why I believe a strong, independent, and unencumbered Fourth Estate is critical to the well-being of our Republic.
Click to expand...

And I truly hope one day you have one.
 
Chomsky said:
Well, this case is a bit different, because it's involving private facilities.

But we can see the very disturbing trend: Business entities using their influence over our legislatures to use government to silence citizen complaints of their illegal activities.

Essentially, it's government turned against it's own citizens (due to crooked government controlled by monied interests).
Click to expand...

Never leave out that "monied interests" are also sometimes the ones seeking damages (especially out if court settlements) from planted evidence. If there were no problem then nobody would seek to solve it. ;)

Remember all the BS about the spotted owl "losing habitat" that turned out to be "endangered" by the barred owl simply being more successful? That cost lots of jobs over total BS.
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
I see, so you would advocate trespass? How about someone come onto your property and dig it up without permission? Something tells me you might have some concerns with that.
Click to expand...

I advocate a policy where the local authorities must comply with a request to accompany the person wishing to document damage on someone's private property. And if it's public property, why is the public being forbidden access to begin with? Do they mean BLM lands (public) held under private lease? Too bad, the lease is a privilege.

Re: requesting local authority attendence...schedule it beforehand with them but not the property owner. (Yeah, I can see lots of times that would be abused by locals informing the property owners unfortunately.)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is where it gets murky. Originally the picture was not taken for that purpose, but once it gets into the "wrong" (eco-terrorist?) hands then the WY gov't seeks to reclassify it as inadmissible evidence taken without "proper" prior consent. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't see it as murky at all. If a picture is to be used as evidence, a connection to permission must be established in order to connect it to the time of collection.

Keeps fabricated evidence to a minimum I would think.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Very clear?

IMO what this means is that if I am hiking, camping, or otherwise legally accessing public lands and I stumble across what I think is an ecological issue, then I can be prosecuted for taking pictures and collecting samples as proof of the incident.

That I have to leave the area, go consult with whatever agency I would need to in order to get permission, and then go back out to take a picture or collect a sample.

Meanwhile, while I am going through all these steps to get permission before being allowed to record evidence of something I found on public lands, the information somehow (i.e. bribed government agents) gets reported to the perpetrators who rush to cover it up while I am waiting.

Sorry, but that is complete and utter B-S. If I see it while being there legally, then I should be able to photograph it and take some samples. End of story.
Click to expand...

That's not true, according to the legislation. You didn't go hiking for the express purpose of collecting resource data to submit to an agency. If you come across something and take a photograph, it would seem the legislation doesn't apply. It appears to state that fact quite clearly.
 
Chomsky said:
To the bolded: Not at all! :doh

As I stated earlier, there are current laws on the books protecting all parties, and there's already methodology in place to qualify evidence.

This is not about "qualifying" evidence (we already have process for that), but it's about criminalizing those that attempt to present evidence, even if it's legit.

It's an example of business interests using government to abridge & harm citizens. And quite honestly, when you have business using government to throw citizens in jail by force, you have fascism. I know fascism is a word bandied about a lot lately, but please tell me where I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could point to a section in the legislation where this is true.
 
ocean515 said:
I don't see it as murky at all. If a picture is to be used as evidence, a connection to permission must be established in order to connect it to the time of collection.

Keeps fabricated evidence to a minimum I would think.
Click to expand...

Simply require it to include a newspaper or to be notarized. You and I both know that other methods are possible to verify time and location taken and that getting permission will be next to impossible. It is not like they can get a search warrant to override any objection of those not wanting any undue attention.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Very clear?

IMO what this means is that if I am hiking, camping, or otherwise legally accessing public lands and I stumble across what I think is an ecological issue, then I can be prosecuted for taking pictures and collecting samples as proof of the incident.

That I have to leave the area, go consult with whatever agency I would need to in order to get permission, and then go back out to take a picture or collect a sample.

Meanwhile, while I am going through all these steps to get permission before being allowed to record evidence of something I found on public lands, the information somehow (i.e. bribed government agents) gets reported to the perpetrators who rush to cover it up while I am waiting.

Sorry, but that is complete and utter B-S. If I see it while being there legally, then I should be able to photograph it and take some samples. End of story.
Click to expand...

Just take some pics of your friends, your dogs, whoever, in the pic with the spot at issue and post on social media. THEN, oopsie, look what we noticed? And report it.
 
Lursa said:
Just take some pics of your friends, your dogs, whoever, in the pic with the spot at issue and post on social media. THEN, oopsie, look what we noticed? And report it.
Click to expand...
Hah, you have a creative mind. I think that's legit, as long as the reporting individual is not you, but one of your FB friends.

But as much as we're off on pictures, I think water samples were the predominant evidence being gathered, which actually strikes me as fine - why not? (as long as evidence is not being forged)
 
katzgar said:
freedom and openness are good
Click to expand...

You're new here? Welcome.

There is a quote feature that allows you to specifically quote the response you are referring to and provides context.

In general with any response, context and specificity (detail, explanation, etc) are recommended.

I hope you enjoy the forum.
 
Chomsky said:
What one sees as 'protection from activists', others see as 'government kow-towing to business by obstructing public justice'.

There's two sides to this coin.
Click to expand...

I agree. Perhaps those on the enviro side could take a moment to think a bit more rationally. Wouldn't it be true that evidence collected illegally would not be admissible in court? Wouldn't a defendant be able to raise a defense that there is no relationship of the evidence to current conditions, since there is no proof of when the illegal evidence was gathered?
 
radcen said:
Hmmm. You don't normally strike me as an "I trust the government to be honest and do the right thing" person.
Click to expand...

I don't think that has anything to do with this piece of legislation. People have rights. Those rights include private property rights.

You don't strike me as someone who advocates for the suspension of private property rights.
 
Chomsky said:
So, if I take a legit pic of an illegal act and keep it to myself, I'm good.

But if I bring to a legal authority, I'm a criminal?

And this makes sense?
Click to expand...

Your statement has no relationship to the legislation.
 
Lursa said:
I advocate a policy where the local authorities must comply with a request to accompany the person wishing to document damage on someone's private property. And if it's public property, why is the public being forbidden access to begin with? Do they mean BLM lands (public) held under private lease? Too bad, the lease is a privilege.

Re: requesting local authority attendence...schedule it beforehand with them but not the property owner. (Yeah, I can see lots of times that would be abused by locals informing the property owners unfortunately.)
Click to expand...

Read the legislation. I provided links. This legislation relates to private property.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Simply require it to include a newspaper or to be notarized. You and I both know that other methods are possible to verify time and location taken and that getting permission will be next to impossible. It is not like they can get a search warrant to override any objection of those not wanting any undue attention.
Click to expand...

A person has a right to restrict access to private property. Advocating for unrestricted access to private property is probably not something the average person would accept as acceptable.
 
Chomsky said:
Specifically, to what part of my post are you referring?
Click to expand...

Well, any part of the legislation that would make your statement true.

As a reminder:

"it's about criminalizing those that attempt to present evidence, even if it's legit."

The only thing the legislation appears to criminalize relates to the method to which such evidence is gathered.
 
ocean515 said:
A person has a right to restrict access to private property. Advocating for unrestricted access to private property is probably not something the average person would accept as acceptable.
Click to expand...

WTF? Nobody was saying that trespassing for any reason should be allowed. The point is that lack of prior permission should never be grounds for later rejection of evidence. If a trespasser finds a body and reports it to authorities is that evidence then inadmissible because of the trespassing (lack of prior express permission to access that property)?

It is one thing to allow charges of trespass but quite another to declare what was found during that trespass to be inadmissible.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
WTF? Nobody was saying that trespassing for any reason should be allowed. The point is that lack of prior permission should never be grounds for later rejection of evidence. If a trespasser finds a body and reports it to authorities then is that evidence then inadmissible because of the trespassing (lack of prior express permission to access that property)?
Click to expand...

WTF indeed. The legislation deals specifically with people entering private property for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of gathering resource data.

Read the legislation. Perhaps that will help you understand what was done.
 
ocean515 said:
I don't see it as murky at all. If a picture is to be used as evidence, a connection to permission must be established in order to connect it to the time of collection.

Keeps fabricated evidence to a minimum I would think.
Click to expand...


I don't think this has anything to do with the courts, as the courts have well established rules governing "evidence". I suspect the issue is environuts "collect evidence" and then make over-exaggerated claims in the media. For instance, the most unstable way to transport petroleum is by rail tanker, yet through abuse of the media, people are against pipelines in the belief they spill.

Now where do you think that mistaken impression came from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom