撤销将拍摄移民执法人员定为犯罪的无人机限制令

EFF 与 ACLU、ACLU of D.C.、National Press Photographers Association 和 Professional Photographers of America 一同加入了一份法庭之友意见书，敦促美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院撤销 FAA 一项侵犯记录执法行为的《第一修正案》权利的无人机飞行限制。这起重要案件——Levine v. FAA——挑战政府惩罚记录正在履行公务的执法人员的无人机飞手的权力。

正如我们在今年早些时候所写，FAA 曾发布一项无人机飞行限制，实际上将拍摄国土安全部官员——包括 ICE 和 CBP 的移民执法人员——及其车辆的行为定为犯罪。即便无人机距离超过半英里，该限制依然适用；FAA 将这些车辆称为“移动资产”，包括“地面车辆车队及其相关护卫”。

一名由 Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 代理的无人机操作员于 3 月起诉 FAA [PDF]。但在 4 月，FAA 撤销了这项飞行限制。

申请人在其开篇陈述中主张，即使该限制已被撤回，法院仍应评估其合法性。无人机飞手仍可能因飞行限制生效期间发生的违规行为而受到处罚。此外，FAA 可随时恢复这项飞行限制，因为撤销决定似乎并非出于“真正的转变”，而更像是该机构为规避司法审查所作的努力。

这份支持申请人的法庭之友意见书指出，无人机具有独特价值，因为它们能够提供“地面影像无法捕捉的视角”；它们“比地面摄像机灵活得多，而且相较于租用飞机或直升机从空中记录新闻事件，无人机既便宜得多，也安全得多”。意见书强调，无人机已拍摄到“抗议活动的鸟瞰画面”以及“警方对抗议者使用武力”的场景，并且“让记者能够在不将自己置于危险中的情况下，向公众提供关于自然灾害的最新信息”。

意见书认为，使用无人机拍摄图像和视频属于受《第一修正案》保护的信息采集活动（类似于使用手机记录执法人员）。意见书还指出，FAA 的飞行限制似乎是专门为禁止拍摄移民执法人员、进而阻碍对其执法行动的问责而发布——FAA 在“这些巡逻队正引发强烈全国反弹之际，在所有流动 DHS 巡逻队周边设立禁飞无人机区”，显然不可能只是巧合。如果情况属实，FAA 的行动将构成基于内容的言论限制，须接受严格审查——这是《第一修正案》下最高的审查标准——并被推定违宪。即使依据较为宽松的《第一修正案》审查标准，这项飞行限制同样违宪，因为 FAA 无法阐明任何足以证明如此广泛言论限制合理性的正当政府利益。

随着政府机构持续投入数十亿美元开发反无人机技术——而这些技术很容易被用于针对记者及其他希望借助无人机记录政府滥权的人——解决这一问题、保护《第一修正案》权利显得尤为紧迫。

我们敦促哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院审查这项申请，并撤销 FAA 的飞行限制。这将传递一个明确信息：政府不能通过惩罚行使《第一修正案》权利的人来逃避问责。

EFF joined an amicus brief with ACLU, ACLU of D.C., National Press Photographers Association, and Professional Photographers of America to urge the D.C. Circuit to vacate an FAA drone flight restriction that violated the First Amendment right to record law enforcement. This is an important case— Levine v. FAA —challenging the ability of the government to punish drone pilots who record law enforcement officers engaged in official business.

As we wrote about earlier this year, the FAA issued a flight restriction for drones that had effectively criminalized the recording of Department of Homeland Security officers, including immigration agents from ICE and CBP, and their vehicles (what the FAA called “mobile assets” including “ground vehicle convoys and their associated escorts”) even if the drone was over half a mile away.

A drone operator, represented by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, sued the FAA in March [PDF]. But in April, the FAA rescinded the flight restriction.

The petitioner argued in his opening brief that the court should evaluate the legality of the flight restriction even though it was withdrawn. Drone pilots could still be punished for violations that occurred when the flight restriction was in effect. And the FAA could reinstate the flight restriction at any time, given that the rescission did not seem to reflect “a true change of heart” but rather an effort by the agency to avoid judicial review.

The amicus brief, filed in support of the petitioner, noted that drones are unique because they provide “perspectives that cannot be captured by ground-based imagery,” and they “are far more maneuverable than ground-level cameras, and they are both much cheaper and much safer than using a chartered plane or helicopter to record newsworthy events from above.” The brief highlighted that drones have captured “bird’s-eye images of protest activity” and “police uses of force against protestors,” and have “allowed journalists to provide the public with up-to-the-minute information about natural disasters without putting themselves in harm’s way.”

The brief argued that using drones to capture images and video is information-gathering activity protected by the First Amendment (similar to using cell phones to record law enforcement). The brief also argued that the FAA’s flight restriction appeared to be issued specifically to ban the recording of immigration agents and thus hinder accountability for their enforcement actions—it surely wasn’t a coincidence that the FAA imposed “no-drone zones around all roving DHS patrols just as those patrols were provoking intense national backlash.” If that’s true, it would make the FAA’s action a content-based restriction on speech that is subject to strict scrutiny—the highest First Amendment standard—and presumptively unconstitutional. And even under less rigorous standards of First Amendment scrutiny, the flight restriction is unconstitutional because the FAA can’t articulate any valid governmental interest justifying such a sweeping restriction on speech.

Resolving this issue to protect First Amendment rights is especially urgent as government agencies continue to sink billions of dollars into technology designed to counter drones—technology that could easily be deployed against journalists and other people hoping to use drones to document government abuse.

We urge the D.C. Circuit to review the petition and to vacate the FAA’s flight restriction, which would send a message that the government can’t avoid accountability by punishing those who exercise their First Amendment rights.