OK, so what IS his message? That he thinks the government should NOT interfere with political speech? Because that's the opposite of what he's saying. He thinks that the government should control who gets to say what. That's the bottom line of his position. Just because you don't like it being boiled down to its essence and said out loud doesn't mean that doing so is trolling. It's just calling it what it is.

Wow, you are really missing the point. You have it backwards. The law wasn't "loosened," it was struck down, in part, because it allowed some groups to do things like run political ads on TV while barring other groups from doing so. Regardless of that unequal treatment under the law, which favored some groups and companies over others, the main issue remains: telling people that they're not allowed to say things during an election is a direct violation of the first amendment. Period. The court came to the same inevitable conclusion. If you don't like the groups like Greenpeace or a labor union or the NRA can run opinion pieces on cable TV or in a newspaper ad, then you need to figure out how to let the government stop those people from saying what they think while not violating the first amendment. And then you have to apply that new speech-inhibiting law evenly to everyone.

So when you join a labor union or incorporate your business, you think you're surrendering your rights to free speech? What if you incorporate a landscaping business in your town, and some local politician says he's going to make it the focus of his term as mayor to prohibit all gasoline powered landscaping equipment in town. Do you really think that the would-be mayor should be allowed to say what he thinks about your business practices and equipment, but you and your fellow landscapers in town shouldn't be allowed to run an ad saying, "Don't elect Mr. Smith, because all of your local landscaping companies will end up out of business." Why do you think such political speech should be banned, but only when it's the business owners who speak it?

No, most Americans do not think that the government be allowed to stop you from expressing your opinion about politics. That's what the First Amendment is there to prevent the government from doing.

What? His message is that he wants the government to limit your ability to engage in free speech. Ironically, he wants to the right to make a highly dangerous (to other people), theatrical exhibition of political speech ... in support of limiting other people's constitutionally protected speech. That sort of irrational position on free speech may indeed be in keeping with someone who thinks he's doing others a favor by risking their deaths in a publicity stunt.

So, you've got no problem with flying a gyrocopter over a public tourist location, and landing there? Without any sort of control of the airspace, no provision for safety on the ground, etc? So, you'd be cool with that guy landing on the road right in front of you any time he wants. Or right next to you while you're having a picnic. Seems like you'd be fine with him, say, driving a 10-ton tracked earth mover onto the Capital grounds, to "petition" the government? So public spaces, like, say, the front lawn of the White House ... should be available to you for any use you see fit, at any time you see fit, as you operate any vehicle you please to make some theatrical point, as long as it's political? Regardless, I love the irony. You're defending his actions as an example of someone using his right to free speech, and ignoring the fact that his complaint is that there IS free political speech. He wants the government to limit political speech, not protect the freedom to make it.

Here you go. Some of these guys have six-figure camera rigs riding on a Segway. There are practical reasons for that in some situations, even with very large budget productions. Not every physical space lends itself to traditional full-sized cranes and dollies on rails, etc.

https://www.google.com/search?...

Really. You're comparing a protest against a monarchy that was suppressing free speech (among many other very bad things), to a guy who decided to fly a dodgy piece of dangerous equipment with high speed rotors past crowds of tourists in order to register his complaint that we have a constitutional guarantee of free speech?

The first amendment is the #1 problem? This guy is complaining because he doesn't like a court ruling that diminished the ability of labor unions (like his) to be allowed to spend money on political ads when other people weren't allowed to. He's upset about a court correctly finding that unequal protection under the law, and the government directly limiting political speech, was unconstitutional.

Yeah, by violating militarily enforced air space that could have involved the use of heavy weapons while he flies his cheeseball gyrocopter over crowds including bunches of children. In other words, he was willing to seriously risk other people's lives in a political stunt.

I'm not apathetic about the first amendment, are you?

Which doesn't excuse him from honoring the DC FRZ (which also means you can't fly toy airplanes or plastic toy multirotors, etc) within a 30-mile circle around where he flew. And it certainly won't change the fine (at least) he's going to pay.

The "property line" was 15 miles away. The DC FRZ (special Flight Restriction Zone) is a 30-mile-wide circle more or less centered around where he landed. What's interesting was that there didn't appear to be any airborne action following along while he made the 15 mile trip from that boundary to the heart of DC. That federal oh-no-you-don't zone means you can't even hover a 3-pound plastic quadcopter 10 feet over your back yard grass out in the suburbs. The feds make no distinction between that 3-pound toy and this guy's much larger machine.

Shooting it down, of course, could have landed it right on top of crowds of kids, among others, who were right there where he flew. He's a complete jackass for doing it in the first place.

You're right. We should absolutely stop people who have smaller budgets from risking their own money to create films, because if they don't have enough cash to hire several union guys to stand around and not operate equipment that isn't useful for the shoot, then they should not be allowed to make films.

OK, so you're trolling. I get it. You don't really think that union buggy whip artisans should still have those jobs even though we don't need thousands of new buggy whips every year. Or DO you think that? I guess you might. Which makes you an idiot, not just a troll.

The Segway is already being used to great effect by filmmakers working in close quarters. A handheld active gimbal like the DJI Ronin (and its cheaper, lighter, new brother, the "M" version), rigged on a Segway, and you've got the ability to do some very cool tracking shots. All without having to do a lot of the elaborate staging that might otherwise have been needed, and without needing a as large a crew transporting, deploying, and operating more traditional equipment.

I believe global warming and ocean acidification is a serious threat. I also believe that solar energy has great potential as an energy source. However, I think the question being framed here creates a false dichotomy. Is it not possible that we might have a world where we have renewable, nuclear, and fossil fuels? Just because we reduce the use of something doesn't mean we have to eliminate it. The fact is that modern civilization needs plastics, mechanical lubrication, and other fossil fuel bi-products. Even if we reduce fossil fuel use by 80%, we can still have these things.

Really? How do you figure $100k paying jobs? You're assuming that every company that uproots and moves to NY, or which launches there, is going to be paying their lobby receptionist, clerical help, etc., six figures? What if they manufacture something. Is every assembly line worker going to be making six figures?

Sure, but something like that doesn't HAVE to, in order to still be a significant (and possibly lethal) PITA.