This. If the difference between an allowed toy and a disallowed drone is solely due to the fact that the drone exercises first amendment rights with a camera and the toy lacks the camera, then the FAA is absolutely in violation.
By all means, regulate hazards. But there are limits to government's authority.
If I throw hops, grain, water and yeast into a pot, I have made beer. Or have I? Yeast is a living organism, and it is the fact that yeast eat sugars and excrete alcohol that makes my soup into beer. It can easily be argued that the yeast made the beer, since I lack any ability to turn sugar into alcohol.
Likewise, I can set up a camera trap to take a picture of wildlife, but it's the animal that technically pressed the shutter button by tripping the motion detection sensor. If an animal presses the shutter button, the picture won't be mine. To avoid the problem of the animal being the one to trigger the camera, I'd either have to have a very long duration video camera that I press record on, or remotely monitor the trap and remotely activate the button to take the picture.
There's no obfuscation needed to note the fact that people all over the world make their living off copyrights that are arguably not theirs at all if an animal activating a camera results in an uncopyrightable image.
Imagine an actor who is underpaid thanks to Hollywood Math filing a DMCA takedown of the movie they acted in. Not just directed at the studio, but the theaters.
Imagine every single person in the background of a stock photo or when a camera pans across a crowd asserting partial copyright ownership of the resulting news report, with the ability to file a DMCA takedown if not monetarily appeased.
Imagine a major Hollywood movie being unable to be sent to the theaters because an actor disagreed with the director.
And are you completely certain that police investigating an electronic crime would realize the difference?
I can see it now: Police are investigating a credit card fraud or child pornography ring, and it all traces to a specific IP. So they look up the IP and it's assigned to a specific street address. So they get a warrant, kick the door in at 3 am, and point guns at the people inside since they're obviously the perpetrators.
It seems a little risky to rely on the judge, jury, prosecutor and police to understand the difference in who controls the hotspot...
The same way you have any class action lawsuit. You bring one or more plaintiffs to the court, convince a judge that while the plaintiff(s) have a valid complaint they're not alone in it, and get the judge to declare the case a class action.
Then once it becomes a class action, members of the class it represents register themselves with the court. Class action lawsuits never start out that way, someone has to file the papers first.
Doing it the other way around is absurd at best -- think about it, how would you fit a class containing thousands or millions of people into a small court room?
More accurately stated, those government officials KNOW that what they do is so illegal, immoral and/or unethical that if the general public ever learned everything their government is doing, no government official would live out the day.
Therefore the general public is the enemy of the government and is to be treated accordingly.
Going by the apparent US government definition, a terrorist is anyone who uses violent force or peaceful reason to achieve a political or societal goal that is inconvenient in any way to the agenda of the currently-elected President.