Bad permit
Rick Smith
National Parks Traveler
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Are National Parks An Appropriate Backdrop For Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue?
For many young adolescent boys growing up in the 1960s, the cold winds, ice, and snows of winter met a thaw in February, when a softer, not quite so lusty version of Playboy showed up in mailboxes across the country: Sports Illustrated's annual Swimsuit Issue.
With bikini-clad models such as Elle Macpherson, Christie Brinkley, Cheryl Tiegs and Rachel Hunter gracing covers and multiple-page spreads within the covers, the Swimsuit Issue quickly became a marketing success. By 2005 it was estimated that that issue alone generated $35 million in revenue for Sports Illustrated. As the years passed, the editors and art directors have gotten more and more risque, dressing their models in skimpier and skimpier swimsuits, and finally painting suits on them.
In 2002, a representative for the National Organization for Women said the issue, "promotes the harmful and dehumanizing concept that women are a product for male consumption."
Until recently, national parks have been left out of the Swimsuit Issue, and generally have been promoted by media as wonderful family destinations. But in 2014 the sports magazine requested, and received permission, to shoot in Yellowstone, Grand Teton and Bryce Canyon national parks for its 2015 Swimsuit Issue.
An outtake from the Yellowstone shoot (above) was used by National Geographic this year in its May issue, which was dedicated to Yellowstone.
Now, as the Park Service is confronting an issue of sexual harassment and misconduct within its workforce, a watchdog group is questioning whether the agency's decision to permit the pictorials doesn't "undermine" its commitment to root out an institutional "culture of tolerance for sexual harassment." In addition, the Park Service's approval of the photo shoots illuminates the gray area in interpreting the agency's management guidelines and recalls a magazine shoot four decades ago that a former park ranger deemed "extremely offensive."
Back in August 1977 Grand Canyon National Park made a splash in Playboy in a river trip pictorial that raised more than a few eyes, as Roderick Nash noted in Wilderness and the American Mind while discussing the issue of river trip permit allocations:
The Grand Canyon allocation controversy raised the deeper question of what kind of use is most appropriate in a federal managed wilderness. One point of view regarded the large, motorized commercial trips as little more than outdoor parties. Beach volleyball and cold beer highlighted these trips. The customers neither expected nor wanted a wilderness experience. The whitewater rapids might as well have been located in an urban amusement park. The highly publicizied and much photographed river trip that Playboy staged came to represent the problem in many minds. The fact that this kind of Grand Canyon trip used part of the limited visitor quota, and in effect kept wilderness enthusiasts off the river, rubbed salt in the already tender wounds of noncommercial boaters.
Grand Canyon resurfaced early this year in another sexually charged saga; not based on titillation, but rather sexual harassment and misconduct. An Office of Inspector General report given to the National Park Service last year and released to the public in January detailed a 15-year-long chapter of sordid behavior in the park's River District. In the end, the park superintendent retired and the Park Service recommitted itself to root out sexual misconduct and harassment, promising to set up a hotline to which complaints could be voiced, anonymously if desired, and to conduct a service-wide survey to determine how prevalent the problem might be.
Last last month, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell traveled to the Grand Canyon with Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, Intermountain Region Director Sue Masica and incoming Grand Canyon Superintendent Chris Lehnertz to meet with the park's employees, hear their concerns, and discuss how the matter would be addressed.
“That’s unacceptable behavior. It is a failure of leadership. It is something that we have got to address," Secretary Jewell told a small pool of reporters gathered at Hopi Point on the South Rim after meeting with roughly 300 park employees. "I will say that this is a team of employees that wants to move on, that does not want to be defined by the actions of a few."
Objectification, Art, Or Freedom Of The Press?
Ironically, as the National Park Service tries to determine just how extensive sexual harassment and misconduct might be across its workforce of 20,000, questions about the appropriateness of Sports Illustrated's use of national parks in 2015 to show off scantily clad models have surfaced. Not only did the sports magazine stage photo shoots in Bryce Canyon, Grand Teton, and Yellowstone national parks, at least, but it also produced videos of the models and crews at work in the parks.
Some Park Service employees were disturbed by the Lower Falls image that appeared in National Geographic's May 2016 issue.
"Many permanent and seasonal NPS employees (male & female) object to this image, and the message communicated. It could be inferred by Dan Wenk in NPS uniform (elsewhere in the issue) as NPS endorsing or sanctioning this type of behavior," one employee told the Traveler. "At the very least, if NPS says it had no control over what Nat Geo publishes, I believe the powers that be at National Geographic AND the National Park Service would be singing a different tune if it had been Dan Wenk in his underwear instead of his carefully planned and orchestrated NPS Class A dress uniform on the preceding pages."
At National Geographic, Director of Communications Anna Kukelhaus pointed out that the swimsuit photograph was just one of 70 images of Yellowstone contained in the issue.
"As a journalistic publication, we tell multiple aspects of a story. For our Yellowstone issue, we did not want to just showcase the natural and ageless beauty of the park, but to look at how the park is used and how people interact with it," she said. "We think this image represents one of the ways the park is used. It is also important to note that any photo shoot in a national park cannot take place without park permission. Park rangers accompanied the teams to various locations throughout the park during the course of this shoot."
Concern about the propriety of the photo shoots, in light of the ongoing issue with sexual harassment and misconduct in the Park Service, led Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility to file a Freedom of Information Act request with the Park Service for:
* All permits issued by NPS to Sports Illsutrated or its employees to conduct a photo shoot or photo shoots on NPS land;
* All records indicating where each Sports Illustrated photo shoot took place, including any NPS staff briefings;
* All correspondence between NPS and Sports Illustrated or its employees regarding photo shoots and/or the publication of photos;
* All correspondence between NPS and Nat Geo or its employees regarding the publication of the Jessica Gomes photo in the magazine’s May 2016 issue.
"We are interested in the records for several reasons," PEER's legal counsel, Laura Dumais, told the Traveler. "First, Jon Jarvis and NPS leadership are currently under fire for fostering a long-term culture of tolerance for sexual harassment, where perpetrators enjoy protection while victims fear to report wrongdoing. If it is true that NPS managers found nothing inappropriate about authorizing a photo shoot in Yellowstone of a scantily-clad model with three fully-clothed men literally in the process of objectifying her, then it’s not difficult to understand why NPS has a problem."
In its FOIA request, PEER stated that, "If, in fact, NPS condoned the actions of Sports Illustrated and National Geographic in taking/publishing photos that undermine NPS’s stated commitment to ending sexual harassment in national parks, then this is very important information that the public should know about prior to the centennial celebration. Presented with such information, the public may choose not to attend such celebrations, or individuals may choose to exercise their First Amendment rights to engage in informed public discourse on the issue prior to or during the celebration."
Secretary Jewell's office did not respond to a Traveler request for comment on the appropriateness of using national parks as backdrops for the Swimsuit Issue that, after its arrival, drew harsh criticism for its cover photo being "100 percent inappropriate" and "obscene," along with more graphic descriptions. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation was so shocked by the covergirl on the 2015 issue that the executive director sent letters to retailers asking that the magazine be removed from public display.
At the Park Service's Washington, D.C., headquarters Tom Crosson, chief of public affairs, would not comment on the appropriateness of the photo shoots or whether the agency approved of the images and videos.
"The National Park Service is obligated to protect the public’s right to free speech in national parks, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. We do not apply a 'morals test' when granting access to our parks for legal activities," he said. "When issuing permits, we do consider factors such as the potential impact to park resources and visitor use. If it is determined that a particular activity would constitute impairment to the park and its resources, or would generate unacceptable impacts as defined by NPS Management Policies, or is prohibited by law, the park would deny the request."
Does Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue Uphold National Park "Values"
The management handbook for national park superintendents, the 2006 Management Policies, contains a section on "Appropriate Uses" of the parks. In that section on page 98, the narrative specifies that, "In exercising its discretionary authority, the Service will allow only uses that are (1) appropriate to the purpose for which the park was established... (emphasis added).
Under the Code of Federal Regulations that discretion was trimmed somewhat, removing the wording pertaining to the purpose for why a national park was established. It does, however, state that permits can be denied if the activity results "in unacceptable impacts or impairment to National Park Service resources or values...'" (emphasis added)
Mr. Crosson would not respond directly to whether the swimsuit photo shoots were appropriate to the purpose for which Yellowstone, Grand Teton, or Bryce Canyon were established, or whether they diminished the values of the parks.
At Yellowstone, Superintendent Wenk said his staff followed guidelines for issuing commerical photography permits when approached by Sports Illustrated.
"Because the project met the legal requirements for this type of permit, specifically that there were no resource or unacceptable impacts to visitor use, we issued the permit," he said in an email.
The guidelines set down by the Management Policies can be difficult to interpret, said Superintendent Wenk.
"We looked at this permit process objectively in 2014. Perhaps we would look at it differently today," he wrote, adding that through the years he has been told "content could not be a reason for denial of a permit as long as other conditions were met."
"The application of NPS policy that you cited can be interpreted many ways," he continued. "What purpose are you saying is not appropriate to the purpose for which the park was established? If you apply your definition, would advertisements for cars, outdoor gear, swimsuits, pain relief or insurance be appropriate? Where do you draw the line if a manufacturer wanted to advertise kayaks and the model wore a swimsuit that was as revealing as the SI model, appropriate or not?"
At the Coalition To Protect America's National Parks, some members thought the swimsuit permit request should have been denied.
"I don’t see that photos/videos of scantily-clad women in any way is consistent with park values. Moreover, I don’t see how this kind of photography or videography for commercial purposes in the public marketplace is considered freedom of the press or speech under the First Amendment," said Bill Wade, whose 30-year NPS career included the Department of the Interior Meritorious Service Award. "I’m sure the (Interior) solicitors – with much more knowledge of the legalities than I have – reviewed all this and approved it, but it seems to me to be a big stretch. One more example of how the policies and laws are gradually becoming more diluted, at the detriment of what national parks stand for."
Added Rick Smith, whose Park Service career included a stint as acting-superintendent at Yellowstone: "Park values are being degraded with this kind of activity. It reminds me of the Playboy shoot on the Colorado River through Grand Canyon, topless models and all. It was extremely offensive."
Rick Smith
5264 N. Fort Yuma Trl.
Tucson, AZ 85750
Tel: 520/529/7336
Cell: 505/259/7161
Email: rsmit...@comcast.net
|
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
|
Ron Mackie
Superintendent Wenk is off the mark, it is disconcerting to see what is
happening with the commercialization of our National Parks. What is
happening in NPS Headquarters and DOI? A very sad day in my view.
> National Parks Traveler
>
> Sunday, August 7, 2016
>
>
>
> Are National Parks An Appropriate Backdrop For Sports Illustrated's
> Swimsuit
> Issue?
>
> few eyes, as Roderick Nash noted in Wilderness and the American Mind while
> discussing the issue of river trip permit allocations:
>
> The Grand Canyon allocation controversy raised the deeper question of what
> kind of use is most appropriate in a federal managed wilderness. One point
> of view regarded the large, motorized commercial trips as little more than
> outdoor parties. Beach volleyball and cold beer highlighted these trips.
> The
> customers neither expected nor wanted a wilderness experience. The
> whitewater rapids might as well have been located in an urban amusement
> park. The highly publicizied and much photographed river trip that Playboy
> staged came to represent the problem in many minds. The fact that this
> kind
> of Grand Canyon trip used part of the limited visitor quota, and in effect
> kept wilderness enthusiasts off the river, rubbed salt in the already
> tender
> wounds of noncommercial boaters.
>
> Grand Canyon resurfaced early this year in another sexually charged saga;
> not based on titillation, but rather sexual harassment and misconduct. An
> Office of Inspector General report given to the National Park Service last
> year and released to the public in January
> strict_Public.pdf> detailed a 15-year-long chapter of sordid behavior in
> Teton, and <http://www.nps.gov/yell> Yellowstone national parks, at
> but it also produced
> ost-explicit-cover-yet.html> drew harsh criticism for its cover photo
> "100 percent inappropriate" and "obscene," along with more graphic
> descriptions. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation
> retailers asking that the magazine be removed from public display.
>
> At the Park Service's Washington, D.C., headquarters Tom Crosson, chief of
> public affairs, would not comment on the appropriateness of the photo
> shoots
> or whether the agency approved of the images and videos.
>
> "The National Park Service is obligated to protect the public's right to
> free speech in national parks, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. We do
> not apply a 'morals test' when granting access to our parks for legal
> activities," he said. "When issuing permits, we do consider factors such
> as
> the potential impact to park resources and visitor use. If it is
> determined
> that a particular activity would constitute impairment to the park and its
> resources, or would generate unacceptable impacts as defined by NPS
> Management Policies, or is prohibited by law, the park would deny the
> request."
>
> Does Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue Uphold National Park "Values"
>
> The management handbook for national park superintendents, the
> denied.
>
> "I don't see that photos/videos of scantily-clad women in any way is
> consistent with park values. Moreover, I don't see how this kind of
> photography or videography for commercial purposes in the public
> marketplace
> is considered freedom of the press or speech under the First Amendment,"
> said Bill Wade, whose 30-year NPS career included the Department of the
> with much more knowledge of the legalities than I have - reviewed all this
> of
> how the policies and laws are gradually becoming more diluted, at the
> detriment of what national parks stand for."
>
> Added Rick Smith, whose Park Service career included a stint as
> acting-superintendent at Yellowstone: "Park values are being degraded with
> this kind of activity. It reminds me of the Playboy shoot on the Colorado
> River through Grand Canyon, topless models and all. It was extremely
> offensive."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rick Smith
>
> 5264 N. Fort Yuma Trl.
>
> Tucson, AZ 85750
>
> Tel: 520/529/7336
>
> Cell: 505/259/7161
>
> Email: rsmit...@comcast.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> View all the postings by visiting our homepage at:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/parklandsupdate?hl=en
>
> To join the Park Land Watch group email Rick Smith:
> rsmit...@comcast.net This will allow you to post your messages to the
> PLW Group.
>
> Membership is free
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "parklandwatch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to parklandsupda...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
Dave Clary
An Epopt
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to parklandsupdate+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
--
--
View all the postings by visiting our homepage at:
http://groups.google.com/group/parklandsupdate?hl=en
To join the Park Land Watch group email Rick Smith: rsmit...@comcast.net This will allow you to post your messages to the PLW Group.
Membership is free
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "parklandwatch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to parklandsupdate+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Ron Mackie
troubling trend to see more and commercialization of the National Parks. I
just do not see how the SI shoot has anything to do with with the 59
National Parks and the mission they are charged with anymore than a
tobacco commercial, pro bike race, etc.
Dave Clary
I'm with you, but it aint gonna happen. The issue I'm concerned with here
is bigger even than parks, and that is government (NPS) censorship of the
content of speech and press in their many forms. Once you give Ken Burns a
permit, you cannot deny one under similar circumstances to anyone else on
the grounds that you do not approve of his subject or outlook. Go to the
Jefferson Memorial and I believe one of his quotes there is to the effect,
"I pledge undying hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
I'm with TJ--censorship is tyranny.
Bill Wade
press as a means of expressing one¹s beliefs, views etc., and the use of
the media for marketing or commercial purposes; and 2) if that difference
exists, then does there not have to be some kind of limits relative to the
marketing or commercial purposes part of it? Would it be appropriate to
issue a permit to a couple to copulate at the base of Jefferson¹s statue
in the Memorial to use to advertise condoms (because to not issue it is
censorship and tyranny)? It seems to me that consistency with values does
come into play (as the NPS Policies attempt to invoke) - the difficulty is
determining the crossover point. Reminds me of the old joke about the guy
at the bar who propositions a young lady to sleep with him by offering her
$1000, to which she responds that she¹d consider it. Then he asks her if
she¹d do it for $10 to which she responds, ³Absolutely not, what do you
think I am, a prostitute?² He says, ³I think we¹ve already determined
that; now all we¹re doing is haggling over price.²
It¹s the haggling over price (values) that makes this issue difficult,
Bill Wade
5625 N Wilmot Road
Tucson, AZ 85750
Home/Office Phone = 520-615-9417
Cell Phone = 520-444-3973
Fax = 520-615-9474
On 8/9/16, 3:59 AM, "Dave Clary" <parklan...@googlegroups.com on
Dave Clary
far back as the 1920s the Supreme Court began stating that commercial speech
is protected speech under the First Amendment, with certain limits that have
been receding ever since. The first case as I recall was about a woman
whose portrait had been used as part of advertising by a flour maker; the
Court said that granting her relief by either letting her prevent
advertising using her face or forcing the advertiser to compensate for use
of her likeness would impinge on the advertiser's freedom of speech. As
years went on the Court has knocked down govt actions (the govt action in
her case would have been court enforcement of her complaint) prohibiting
advertisements for birth control or outlawing the showing of movies on
grounds of putative obscenity (the salient case in that one about 60 years
ago involved the Chicago Board of Censorship's prohibition of showing
Disney's The Vanishing Prairie on the grounds that its showing the birth of
a buffalo calf was obscene). Sex always seems to figure in somehow or
other, no matter how tangentially. And let us remember that NPS is a
government agency.
Your sex in public argument does not work. Although the couple or film
company might argue that freedom of the press was at stake, in fact there
are non-speech laws and ordinances governing "lewd" behavior, public nudity,
and the like and they would control. And those such rules have steadily
eroded away since WWII; there are not likely to be many more Stonewall riots
against enforcement of laws prohibiting serving alcohol to homosexuals, etc.
My point is that once you permit filming by one you must accord the same
privileges to all who meet the standards of the permit--without controlling,
particularly in advance, the content of the expression in the resulting
film. NPS could probably get away with a distinction between purely
commercial and other forms of expression, but at this late date I have my
doubts. On the other hand, especially in urban areas, NPS has admirably set
aside "free speech" zones for protests without regard to the positions the
protesters will take. And not just in urban areas--NPS is to be commended
for letting the KKK march in Gettysburg NMP.
Back in the early 70s, when I was working for Bob Utley, I was visited
by a delegation from Interior's solicitor's office, DOJ, and I don’t
remember who else, looking into a charge made by citizens through a
congressman that NPS operated a chapel at Yellowstone. On the face of it
this violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I torpedoed
that by pointing out that the offending building was built by the army in
the 1890s, was part of the historic complex comprised of Fort Yellowstone,
and that removing it would damage our historic preservation obligations.
Then the question came up of whether NPS permitted services by all religious
groups and not just some, which was the case. The upshot was that the
chapel could remain but that use of it must be equally available to all,
whether or not the group was religious or otherwise. That kind of
evenhandedness is what is advisable, perhaps required, in this present
instance.
In other words, if you want to film here, pay your fee, meet the
technical and operational requirements, and go ahead. What your film will
show is not our concern.
And my goodness, Playboy went on the market way back in 1953. How at
this day and age did this fuss get stirred up over cheesecake?
Doug Troutman
My other concern is that from (even before) my time in Yellowstone in 1963, skinny dipping in remote springs, stream or river pools, or lakes, has long been traditional, and satisfying recreation, or mere sanitation, since before Muir's days in Yosemite. Wearing a swimsuit in a hot spring btw should be BANNED, as the detergents and other contaminates endanger the biota more than "body contents" even if E. coli becomes a problem when bears, cows, and people share the same "sanitary" concerns regarding body functions beyond sweat and dirt.
Examples: a couple in a remote area skinny dipping, an old man comes along, invades their space, then attacks the guy with a baseball bat, because his grandkids, 1/2 mile away may see a naked body and well, die, or be permanently scarred for life. Prudes are far more dangerous than prune skin from skinny dipping. All this guy, or a gal wanting me to hike 12 miles up the Toulumne River to cite two couples for skinny dipping, when all she had to do was turn her back and walk away down the trail.
When the Osmond family filmed a jeans commercial for the market in Japan way back when in Yosemite, nobody whined about the creeping commercialism, which was real and a concern, but, as long as nothing illegal, or destructive is occurring (to solitude or natural features) it should be addressed in the permit, but the content of the commercials doesn't have to be sniffed out with a blue nose.
It all boils down to this "election cycle" has brought about the most vicious attacks on ALL federal agencies I've ever seen, and NPS is catching the brunt from the most "conservative" factions, who see actual conservation as their greatest enemy in securing their dreams, so adequately stressed by James Watt, in many respects. I will never forget his statement, oft repeated, that we need to use up (destroy) ALL natural resources that are exploitable, because Jesus is coming back in HIS LIFETIME, and we must not leave unused those resources, and waste them by preserving any natural life form on the planet.
SI permit isn't the real threat to Parks and Public Lands.
Doug T.
Sent from my iPad
Ron Mackie
is one thing to issue a permit based on what Ken Burns intent and purpose
was, ie a historical, cultural and ecological overview of the National
Park Service , and what Sports illustrated had in mind, which is
transparently obvious, a filming background for its best selling magazine
each year, the swimsuit issue. My question, what has that got to do with
the National Parks? I do not think the NPS policies of denying permits
based on SI's intent is any violation of free speech. THE NPS has had
strict guidelines on this for many years, if challenged, that is the
American way. Of course I am less than an expert on any of this, but I
have had experience on both sides of the picket line, the agencies do have
a right to designate free speech areas, set rules and limits to what is
to be allowed as far as conduct is concerned, etc. One free speech event I
was involved in in a major National Park was quite restrictive and even
had a swat team standing between the participants and the DOI Secretary. I
do not think the issue is censorship, the issue to me is the
appropriateness of issuing the permit in the first place. As I have much
respect for your views, please have at me.
Dave Clary
but could anybody explain to a judge what it really means? Who decides what
is or is not appropriate in any context? Courts with good reason look
askance at any govt entity that engages in arbitrary or capricious decision
making, and I think that is what is involved here. And I don’t see the
distinction you do between Burns as an example and SI. Burns does not do
this for his health; he has built up quite an organization over the decades,
sells his documentaries to PBS and others, retains all subsidiary rights,
and pays himself very well. I don’t see a big difference between that and
selling magazines.
There is also the issue of artistic freedom, and before you blanch take
a look at fashion ads in magazines like Esquire and Vanity Fair, which over
the past decades have become works of art in their own right, some very
good. I bet the photographers for SI would claim with justice that they are
creating works of art with their bikini girls in beautiful natural settings.
At least their models are clad after a fashion, while painters have been
doing nudes for centuries.
Censors are always well-intentioned, or feel they are. They are
protecting us dummies from things they think we cannot handle, or will
corrupt our morals. or will cause us to doubt our political leaders. Or in
this case safeguarding what is or is not "appropriate" to an NPS area. But
a judge might wonder what is the basis for denying the privilege of
photographing a model in a bikini in one park, while letting others flock a
swimming beach in bikinis.
Permits to shoot film in an NPS area should be issued with regard to
scheduling, avoiding disruption of visitor traffic, keeping the area
unharmed, but should not go beyond that to the content of the filmed
product. As I said before, tyranny always starts with censorship, and that
I oppose in any circumstances, whether it emanates from the likes of Putin
or some benign govt agency like NPS. Riled in Roswell
jimmy
As it was for the Oyster Issue at Point Reyes. As it should be for Donor Recognition for Director's Order 21.
If the purpose of the SI spread was to sell bathing suits, then no permit.
When the purpose gets to be to sell magazines it is a much harder question. Unlike the Supreme Court, I don't believe money is Speech or that a corporation is a person. Yet my answering machine is not jammed with questions from the Supremes asking my opinion.
The reality is we have accepted from the beginning of the Republic that journalism can be a for-profit business. Not that I like it. But SI commercial business in our world includes journalism. I doubt we could make a case that the swim suit spread is explicitly intended only to sell magazines or only to sell sex or only to sell the American Way of Life as no doubt it does to traditional societies all over the world to repercussions we know about.
Therefore, the only way to affect the permit conditions would be consistent zoning of places or times.
On Donor Recognition, I've objected to the group think condemning the proposed Director's Order although actually I think it is weak in several places and fatally flawed process of going public before permitting the Regions or even the WASO technical experts to comment was nuts. In that case, if you accept my logic that Commercial Services or Activities not covered by existing law such as Concessions, then the issue of "Logos" stands or falls on when or if a Logo is advertising. I believe there is a strong case for crediting a donor for exactly what it is they did. Therefore, a statement recognizing the donation should be permitted (and there is also some value in recognizing that the society values parks even if you think the donor is a sleezeball who is trying to Greenwash unforgivable sins).
The Director was told by his committee of outside advisors including the NPF that logos must be permitted for parks to attract the donations and the endowments that the current condition of funding the Mission seems to demand. The point being that the reader of the statement acknowledging the donation recognizes the logo, that it is common communication of the world today. There is to be some control by the Superintendent on size and temporary-only placement.
So if you have Suburus driving around the park with blatant logos on them, it seems to me that is advertising, a commercial activity, and should be banned not permitted. If you accept the idea of logos as communication, then the logo should be no larger than the statement, and both statement and logo need to be small enough not to be confused with advertising. As with all park management, park managers should err on the side of protection. If you challenge, as the Coalition did, the use of logos at all, then more examination of the premise of the NPF that donations are necessary and that they actually make a big difference (the Ben Franklin joke) in how much is donated, or challenge whether the Mission really needs the money, OR: do a much better job than park advocates are now doing, of getting the Congress to provide the appropriations the Mission needs, or cut way back on facilities in parks.
Interestingly, at Independence Hall on the question of restricting First Amendment access through prior zoning, that park had strongly circumscribed zones, which it firmly imposed. But then a movie/film company came in and permitted access that previously had not been. Our current tactics, in the ideology of SOL, is that consistency of restrictions will protect us.
As to Bill's concerns about copulation in a public place, presumably there are other laws available, inasmuch as permits cannot be issued for illegal activities. But if Dave or a Solicitor told me I had to permit a photo play of copulation because I would lose a suit, the hell with that. No permit.
PS: complete disclosure: I once issued a permit to NBC who did a Beyoncé show in the park that half my staff considered pornographic when released as a National television special. The half who did not like it were incensed. The other staffers, particularly the one in charge of managing the permit program had sly little tittering smiles on their faces, the kind you see on the face of one delighted by a really good dirty joke.
I'm so old I look fondly on the day when at the discretion of the Superintendent a permit was considered an extraordinary thing and could be rejected or not. Something the court would call arbitrary, unless supported by a lengthy paper trail of SOPs.