Six points against Wyoming’s data trespass laws

by Gregory Nickerson November 11, 2015November 12, 2015

A WyoFile reader submitted this photo and caption that shows the kind of image that plaintiffs say could be made illegal by Wyoming's data trespass laws: "Avoiding cow shit (and hopefully E. coli) while searching for native Colorado cutthroat in Bridger-Teton National Forest." (Andrew Bennett)

Plaintiffs suing to overturn Wyoming’s data trespass laws filed a response Tuesday to the state’s motion to dismiss. The laws make it illegal to collect data on “open land” — defined as anywhere outside of a city or subdivision where the data collector has no ownership interest — without permission.

The plaintiffs include Western Watersheds Project, the National Press Photographers Association, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Center for Food Safety.

Their Nov. 10 response argues the following six points:

Plaintiffs have standing to sue.

The data trespass laws have chilled freedom of speech and First Amendment rights.
Groups stopped collecting data on public lands in summer 2015 because they feared prosecution.

Data collection is free speech protected by the Petition Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The data trespass laws punish those who intend to communicate data to the government.

The data trespassing laws regulate based on the content of speech.

Laws regulating speech must be narrowly tailored to achieve compelling state interest.

Data trespassing laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

The laws target a specific group: data collectors.

Federal law preempts the data trespassing laws.

Wyoming’s data trespass laws conflict with laws passed by Congress, including provisions in the Clean Water Act that provide for citizen assistance in water quality monitoring.

The Governor should not be dismissed from the suit.

Plaintiffs argue Gov. Matt Mead is a proper defendant because he has responsibility for maintaining resource data.

Defendants:

Gov. Matt Mead, Attorney General Peter Michael, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality director Todd Parfitt, and the attorneys for Lincoln, Sublette, and Fremont counties.

Click here to read the a summary of the state’s motion to dismiss the case.

Read the plaintiff’s memorandum opposing the state’s motion to dismiss:

Gregory Nickerson

Gregory Nickerson worked as government and policy reporter for WyoFile from 2012-2015. He studied history at the University of Wyoming. Follow Greg on Twitter at @GregNickersonWY and on www.facebook.com/GregoryNickersonWriter/ More by Gregory Nickerson

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for:

Your real name — first and last.
Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
No more than three comments per story, including replies.

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
Comments that are not directly relevant to the article.
Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know:

Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement.
We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance.
Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you.