Aside from all the snarky comments promptly directed at it, there's this:
By contrast, the Forest Service is giving its supervisors discretion to decide whether a news outlet's planned video or photo shoots would meet the Wilderness Act's goals.
"If you were engaged on reporting that was in support of wilderness characteristics, that would be permitted," Close said.
So... it's a discretionary permit, and may be issued or not based on viewpoint?
Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture? Anyone? Any distinguished ConLaw scholars out there?