The One-Man 'Cult' That Put St. Louis Under Surveillance
The story behind the city's ban on unlicensed drone businesses is even weirder than the ban itself.

One bad actor became an excuse for the government to ruin everyone's day. Or that's how some drone pilots in Missouri are feeling right now, after the self-described "rat king" and "cult" leader Jomo Johnson offered pay-per-view surveillance of St. Louis and the city responded with ham-handed restrictions.
The St. Louis Board of Aldermen voted last week to require any drone pilot flying for commercial reasons to have a city license. (That's on top of the Federal Aviation Administration license that commercial drone pilots already need.) The bill would also ban drones from flying within 25 feet of people without their consent or near public buildings and emergency vehicles.
Mayor Tishuara Jones says she's looking forward to signing it into law. The site DroneDJ calls the move "another example of isolated obnoxious drone operation producing regressive rules for all users."
While the bill throws barriers in the way of businesses like real estate photography, it exempts "members of the press who operate drones to collect video footage or photographs for journalistic purposes and activities protected by the Constitution"—which leaves room for exactly the kind of livestreaming that the aldermen were trying to ban in the first place.
"We want to respect privacy, but also, there is a right to photograph in public," Johnson told a local NBC affiliate. "That's covered under the First Amendment."
The bill was a response to Johnson's company, SMS Novel, advertising paid surveillance livestreams of St. Louis neighborhoods. SMS Novel offered to let users submit requests for surveillance of specific locations. Johnson described his service as a "unique opportunity for both entertainment and security."
It's unclear whether the surveillance even existed in any meaningful form. The local news station First Alert 4 tried to pay for SMS Novel's livestream on the first day of streaming but never gained access to the video. The two samples of SMS Novel footage that are posted to YouTube show jerky, nearly-unwatchable piloting.
Surveillance would not be Johnson's first creepy business venture. Different versions of the SMS Novel website have offered different services. One version let people pay $200 to have their pet audition for a film about "the mythical tale of the dog that followed Jesus." Another version sold AI-generated books for nearly $100.
In a video, SMS Novel described itself as a "writing cult" around Johnson, a "subservient rat king of writers devoted to the Almighty Word, joined at the tails by the power of AI."
Speaking in defense of his drone venture, Johnson has presented himself as an upstanding crime fighter rather than an cult leader. He told a February 29 board meeting that "we shouldn't demonize Black voices that try to create solutions for crime in St. Louis and other cities."
Johnson said he was speaking "as someone who has frequented St. Louis much and also as a future resident." Other people at the meeting shouted, "He doesn't even live here!"
In his January 29 interview, Johnson also called himself "a drone businessperson who represents drone pilots." Many in the drone community, however, see Johnson as a threat to their ability to self regulate.
"If you're in the drone business and you're trying to create a drone business that's going to create this kind of havoc, keep in mind that there will be an overreaction," flight instructor Greg Revardiau said during his weekly Pilot Institute news video. "Everybody—in this case, in St. Louis—can owe it to [Johnson] that now they may not be able to fly in certain areas."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
it exempts "members of the press who operate drones to collect video footage or photographs for journalistic purposes and activities protected by the Constitution"
Just one more instance where a government wants to license people to use the 1st amendment. Nowhere in the constitution does it imply that only journalists can enjoy the protections afforded by the 1st amendment.
This is a city government, of course, so they are extra stupid but that is a staggering misreading of the constitution.
Mayor Tishuara Jones
Why shouldn't the first be subject to the same common sense regulation as the second?
Does the ordinance require a full background check and hours of training?
Can the sheriff deny the permit without giving a reason, and no appeal?
Does the applicant have to pay for all that stuff themselves?
Those pikers aren't even trying!
Only the state is allowed to have control of the panopticon.
This asshole has agent provocateur written all over him. It wouldn't surprise me if he is working with the City doing all his creepy shit to serve as a pretext for cracking down on peaceful, honest, rights-respecting drone owners, as well as citizen activist who legitimately want to hold officials accountable.
Another thing: If one of Jihnson's videos peers into the window of a dwelling, that could put him in violation of any "Peeping Tom" statutes, not to mention get his flying piece of shit shot. And if bullets and buckshot start falling on by-standers, then there's real crime as a result.
Correction: Johnson, not Jihhnson, though he is as nebulous as a Djinn.
🙂
😉
Drones and peeping Tom laws is an area of the law that has not been litigated yet.
You do not own the air around or over your house.
You do not own the public street or the air over the street.
So far, it is legal to stand in the street and look at your house.
If your shades are open, then it is legal to look into your window from the public street.
If you have a fence, it is legal to stand in the public street, fly the drone 10 feet over your head, and look at the window while being over and in the public street.
While you may be outraged if someone flies a drone over your fence and hovers 20 feet from outside your window, this may be legal.
It has not been litigated yet.
If you do anything to interfere with the drone, the federal aviation administration can charge you with the crime of interfering with aircraft
even if the drone is over your property at the level of your window
You could watch by foot or drone from a public street or sidewalk with the naked eye or camera, but not break the imaginary plane of the property line and go on foot to peak in the window without consent. That would clearly be trespass. A drone is an extension of the user and is really no different.
Also, noxious fumes or pollution passing through the air are at least a nuisance and violates enjoyment of private property rights as well as bodily integrity if the fumes or pollution threaten health and life. A bullet travelling through the air is a danger to life and property.
A drone is little different than fumes, pollution, or a bullet, especially if it loses power and falls. In fact, a drone is even more controllable than fumes, pollution, or bullets.
This is not so simple. We may see a day when property owners post "No drones" signs side-by-side with "No Solicitation" signs.
So you oppose facts with 'what if" --- I smell a politician in the making. Pure HIllary stuff that is.
Nope. Facts with facts plus the factual principle of Individual Private Property Rights. Clearly not anything Hillary or Bill or many other politicians like.
And recall, I said nothing against drones per se, only against their use to violate Individual Private Property Rights.