Just the Facts, Ma'am

Sergeant Joe Friday, in James Webb's classic radio and TV show Dragnet, often cautioned witnesses when he interviewed them, "Just the facts." Some modern journalists and editors could use that admonition.

When you see a headline, "Wyoming Makes It A Crime To Collect Evidence Of Pollution On Public Lands", you have to wonder. Where did they get that from?

The article starts,

Wyoming has implemented a law that will make it virtually impossible for citizen watchdog groups, whistleblowers, and even concerned private citizens to collect data evidence of pollution outside of city limits.
The law, signed by Governor Matt Mead (R) makes it illegal to collect data, outside of city boundaries, on all lands public, private or federal.

And, according to the article,

Essentially if you live in or visit Wyoming, taking a picture of a polluted stream as a concerned citizen for the purpose of informing the EPA, National Forestry Service or any other agency could land you a $5000 fine and up to a year in jail.

The article cites one from ThinkProgress, a well known liberal/progressive web site, "In Wyoming, Taking A Photo Of A Polluted Stream Could Land You In Jail". The article's claims aren't quite as flamboyant, they are still rather scary.

Imagine, for a second, a hiker who is taking a walk through a national forest in Wyoming. During that hike, she notices a visibly polluted stream within the area. The next day, she returns with a camera to take a picture of the stream, with the intention of showing those photographs to the local authorities as proof of pollution. Under the Data Trespass Bill, unless the hiker obtained specific permission from the land's owner or manager — in this case, the Forest Service — to collect that data, she would be subject to prosecution that could result in up to $5,000 in fines and a year in prison. And while the law probably won't be used to slap fines on every Yellowstone tourist with a camera, it does have broad-reaching implications for environmental data collection in the state, according to Justin Pidot, an assistant professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, who wrote a piece on the law for Slate.

Professor Pidot says in his Slate article that he represented Western Watersheds Project pro bono in an unrelated law suit. Western Watersheds is in the business of collecting data to use in federal law suits to shut ranchers down. He starts with the following scenario:

Imagine visiting Yellowstone this summer. You wake up before dawn to take a picture of the sunrise over the mists emanating from Yellowstone hot springs. A thunderhead towers above the rising sun, and the picture turns out beautifully. You submit the photo to a contest sponsored by the National Weather Service. Under a statute signed into law by the Wyoming governor this spring, you have just committed a crime and could face up to one year in prison. (Links in the original.)

All three articles link to a copy of SF 12 (2014) on Legiscan. Let's look instead at the bill as posted on the legislature's web site. We will use the enrolled version, i.e. the version sent to the Governor for his signature. Let's see exactly what is made illegal. The bill adds a new section to Wyoming statutes (WS).

6-3-414. Trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data; unlawful collection of resource data.
(a) A person is guilty of trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data if he:
(i) Enters onto open land for the purpose of collecting resource data; and
(ii) Does not have:
(A) An ownership interest in the real property or, statutory, contractual or other legal authorization to enter or access the land to collect resource data; or
(B) Written or verbal permission of the owner, lessee or agent of the owner to enter or access the land to collect the specified resource data.
(b) A person is guilty of unlawfully collecting resource data if he enters onto private open land and collects resource data without:
(i) An ownership interest in the real property or, statutory, contractual or other legal authorization to enter the private land to collect the specified resource data; or
(ii) Written or verbal permission of the owner, lessee or agent of the owner to enter the land to collect the specified resource data.

Let's take another look at the three scenarios. Does the law make it illegal to "collect data evidence of pollution outside of city limits", as the first article would have it? Uh, no. Some 48% of Wyoming is public land, and by law anyone may go on public lands for recreation and other lawful purposes. Federal law, such as BLM regulations, operates on federal land, and trumps state law. So collecting evidence of pollution on National Park Service, Forest Service and BLM lands does not require permission per WS 6-3-414 (a) (II) (A). What might be illegal is entering state public open land with the intention of collecting resource data. Other lands might not be as open, but the law does not ban collection of data outright.

The ThinkProgress article specifically takes place on Forest Service land. Enough said.

Now, you would think that Professor Pidot, a law professor, would be able to read the statute. His scenario takes place in Yellowstone National Park. Again, if you have paid your admission fee or otherwise are legally in the park, the Wyoming statute does not apply.

And a huge hole in the thesis of these three articles is that the bill does not prohibit collecting data from public spaces such as highways, county roads, and other public rights of way. Some of those traverse public lands, and many traverse otherwise private land.

So what do we have? Three articles that cite each other. The first one in the chain is written by someone who should be able to read a statute. And all three come up with wildly unrealistic scenarios.

It is possible to come up with a more balanced story, like one on Fox News, which at least quotes House Judiciary Committee chairman Dave Miller. Or a better balanced article such as the Casper Star Tribune's story.

So what's going on? Perhaps it's a concerted effort to scare people. Is prejudice at work? Perhaps it's just sloppy research. Perhaps the environmental movement simply has problems reporting accurately – climategate comes unbidden to mind.

The why of it is not the main lesson here. Two lessons are more important.

The three articles that cite each other point to a problem with the Internet: people can turn it into an echo chamber. There are people out there who only get their news from left leaning sources such as ThinkProgress or Moveon.org. And there are people who only get their news from Matt Drudge or Fox. Those people are caught in their respective echo chambers. So get your news from multiple sources, from Al Jazeera America to the Economist.

But the most important lesson is very simple:

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

As Abe Lincoln said.