Civil Liberties Organizations Caution FAA Drone Regulations May Hinder Journalistic Freedom

Coalition Advocates for First Amendment Protections in Proposed FAA Drone Rule

By DRONELIFE Features Editor Jim Magill

Concerns Over Proposed Section 2209 Rule

A coalition of civil liberties organizations is calling for revisions to a proposed Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rule that would allow critical infrastructure sites, such as prisons and nuclear power plants, to impose restrictions on drone flights over their facilities. The groups emphasize the importance of drones in newsgathering and warn that the rule, if implemented too broadly, could hinder independent drone-based journalism.

Comments from Advocacy Groups

In a comment submitted regarding Section 2209 of the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) expressed concerns that overly broad restrictions could limit journalistic activities. They stated, “Restrictions must also be strictly confined to the most serious risks lest they create a dense patchwork of restrictions that together create confusion and significantly restrict, burden and impose barriers on drone operations by journalists and ordinary people.”

FAA’s Response and Proposed Rule Details

The FAA has received significant feedback on the proposed rule, prompting an extension of the comment period from July 6 to August 5. As of July 13, the agency reported receiving 578 comments. Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU, highlighted the need for journalism to be considered in the development of these regulations, stating that journalistic uses of drones should be integrated into the approach to creating flight restrictions.

Scope of Proposed Flight Restrictions

The FAA’s proposed rule would grant flight restrictions to facilities across 16 sectors, including:

• Chemical
• Commercial facilities
• Communications
• Critical manufacturing
• Dams
• Defense industrial base
• Emergency services
• Energy
• Financial services
• Food and agriculture
• Government services and facilities
• Healthcare and public health
• Information technology
• Nuclear reactors, materials, and waste
• Transportation systems
• Water and wastewater

Stanley noted that the extensive nature of the proposed rule could create challenges for individuals flying drones for First Amendment-protected activities.

Balancing Security and Journalism

While acknowledging the legitimate security concerns associated with facilities like nuclear power plants, Stanley emphasized the need for a process that balances these concerns with the importance of journalism. He pointed out that the proposed rule lacks explicit recognition of journalistic activities, as terms like “journalist,” “reporter,” and “newsgathering” do not appear in the text.

Examples of Drone Journalism

The advocacy groups cited instances where drone photography has played a crucial role in exposing wrongdoing. For example, an amateur drone operator in Texas documented pollution from a slaughterhouse, while journalist Myron Dewey captured aerial footage of law enforcement actions during the Standing Rock pipeline protests in 2016.

Concerns About the Definition of “Debilitating Impact”

Another issue raised by the coalition pertains to the requirement for facility owners to demonstrate that potential damage from drone activity would have a “debilitating impact” on security or public health. Stanley criticized this phrase as vague and overly broad, questioning what constitutes a “debilitating impact.”

Weighing Risks and Benefits

Stanley argued that the potential harm from malicious drone use must be weighed against the benefits of allowing drone operators to monitor agricultural facilities for animal abuse and other misconduct. He noted that the agricultural sector has seen significant conflicts over First Amendment rights, particularly regarding transparency in factory farming practices.

In conclusion, Stanley emphasized the necessity of establishing a balancing process that allows for dialogue between facility owners, journalists, and other stakeholders to determine appropriate regulations that protect both security and the rights of the public to engage in journalism.