As might have become apparent from several past blog posts, I love watching so-called "First Amendment Audit" videos on YouTube, where people, primarily in the United States, go to public places to film and see if their right to do so is respected, and to educate security guards etc. if they try to stop them because they don't know the Constitution and the law in such matters.
There are many misconceptions that many people seem to have about the law. One of the most prominent ones is that they think that in order to photograph or film somebody, you need permission from that somebody, and that person can deny permission, in which case the photography/filming is illegal. Of course that's not the case. In most countries (very much including the United States) you can photograph whatever you can see from a public place, and that includes people. There is no expectation of privacy in public.
Another common misconception that you often see in these videos, especially from security guards (and more rarely, although sometimes, from the police) is what "freedom of the press", guaranteed by the First Amendment, actually means.
Oftentimes when engaging with security guards and such, who are demanding the auditor to stop filming, the auditor will argue that his right to film in public is guaranteed by the freedom of the press clause in the First Amendment, and almost invariably the security guard (or police, or other person) will ask for press credentials. "Are you a member of the press? Can I see some press credentials?"
The implication seems to be that they think that in order to exercise the right to free press, you need to have "press credentials", to be officially a member of some news organization or something.
They seem to completely fail to understand that that would actually be the exact opposite of freedom of press. Requiring some official credentials or license before you can exercise journalism would be a limitation to the free press, and thus its complete opposite.
This is not just theoretical. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled several times that this is indeed the case. The First Amendment indeed implies that anybody can exercise journalism without limitation, because that's exactly what guaranteeing freedom of the press means. Citizens can be independent journalists just by saying so, and they do not need any permission or licenses from anybody to be able to exercise their journalistic freedom.
There are many misconceptions that many people seem to have about the law. One of the most prominent ones is that they think that in order to photograph or film somebody, you need permission from that somebody, and that person can deny permission, in which case the photography/filming is illegal. Of course that's not the case. In most countries (very much including the United States) you can photograph whatever you can see from a public place, and that includes people. There is no expectation of privacy in public.
Another common misconception that you often see in these videos, especially from security guards (and more rarely, although sometimes, from the police) is what "freedom of the press", guaranteed by the First Amendment, actually means.
Oftentimes when engaging with security guards and such, who are demanding the auditor to stop filming, the auditor will argue that his right to film in public is guaranteed by the freedom of the press clause in the First Amendment, and almost invariably the security guard (or police, or other person) will ask for press credentials. "Are you a member of the press? Can I see some press credentials?"
The implication seems to be that they think that in order to exercise the right to free press, you need to have "press credentials", to be officially a member of some news organization or something.
They seem to completely fail to understand that that would actually be the exact opposite of freedom of press. Requiring some official credentials or license before you can exercise journalism would be a limitation to the free press, and thus its complete opposite.
This is not just theoretical. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled several times that this is indeed the case. The First Amendment indeed implies that anybody can exercise journalism without limitation, because that's exactly what guaranteeing freedom of the press means. Citizens can be independent journalists just by saying so, and they do not need any permission or licenses from anybody to be able to exercise their journalistic freedom.
Comments
Post a Comment