As might have become clear from some past blog posts, I'm quite a fan of watching so-called "First Amendment Audit" videos on YouTube. This is people, primarily in the United States, simply going to public places to film video, and seeing if their rights to do so are respected. They may film Federal buildings, post offices, police stations, military bases, and all kinds of private corporation headquarters and workplaces (such as, for example, office buildings and oil refineries).
As long as they remain at a public space, what they are doing is perfectly legal, this right being guaranteed by the Constitution, and nobody has the right to make them stop. Of course that doesn't deter security guards, police officers, soldiers and other people from trying. Some of these videos can be quite hilarious, with some random security guard getting all angry about his authority not being respected (even though private security guards have exactly zero authority in a public space, and are nothing more than private citizens). Almost invariably the police will be called. The amount of scrutiny and even outright harassment from the police varies quite a lot, all the way from the police not even engaging with the photographer at all (or, at the very most, pretty much just saying "hello" and that's it), to outright civil rights violations (the worst cases ending up in court, with the photographer pretty much always winning), although these most extreme cases tend to be quite rare. The most common case is the police trying to intimidate the photographer and demand an ID (the amount of insistence on seeing ID also varying quite a lot, with some officers being really persistent), usually to no avail. These auditors know the law and know not to get intimidated by requests they aren't obliged to grant.
I have myself entertained the idea of doing this myself here, in Finland. However, the law is not the same here as it is in the United States, which makes it a bit less enticing of an idea. There are some crucial differences:
Most states in the United States do not have so-called "stop-and-ID" laws, which means that citizens are not obliged to show ID to police officers even if they ask for it, unless they have been lawfully detained or arrested because of an articulable suspicion of a crime. Since public photography is not a crime, the police cannot demand ID just for that, and the photographer can simply refuse.
Not so in Finland. Here the law states that if a police officer demands ID, you have to show it, or else you could be fined for insubordination. If the police wants to know who you are, they will know it, and there's no way around it. If you try to refuse, you could get arrested.
Likewise in the United States the police can't just demand a citizen to leave a public space willy-nilly. Photography, which is a completely legal activity, cannot be used as an excuse to demand a citizen to stop and leave. In Finland, however, the same law states that if a police officer orders a citizen to leave a place, even if it's a public place, the citizen has to obey (or be possibly fined for insubordination).
A "first amendment audit" (couldn't be really called that because it's not a "first amendment" in the Finnish constitution, but anyway) in Finland would thus not have such an impact. If whatever establishment you are filming decides to call the police, and the police decides to demand your ID and/or for you to leave the place, you have to obey. You have no recourse against this. The law is against you. Thus the establishment kind of "wins", if the police officers are so inclined.
Moreover, there are even more crucial differences:
In most of the United States, as the adage goes among auditors, "eyes cannot be trespassed", "whatever can be seen from a public space can be filmed", and most crucially, "there is no expectation of privacy in a public place."
Not so in Finland. Here there is an expectation of privacy even in a public place.
In the United States, if you are in a public place, you have zero privacy. Anybody can photograph and film you, and put the footage online completely uncensored, no matter what you are doing and how much you are embarrassing yourself, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
In Finland, it's illegal to publish footage of someone so that they are recognizable, and the publication of that footage could cause public embarrassment or other form of harm. Public photography is allowed, and you don't need to ask for people's permission, but you have to be careful what exactly you publish online, even if it has been fully filmed at a public place. You may need to conceal people's identities (eg. by blurring).
In the United States, if it can be seen from a public place, it can be filmed. It doesn't matter if it's a private place that can be seen; if it can be seen, it can be filmed. Not so in Finland. While public photography is generally allowed, you are not allowed to film the interiors or private residences, yards, gardens and so on, in a level of detail where they can be clearly seen. Especially you aren't allowed to photograph people inside these private residences.
In many First Amendment Audit videos a security guard will argue that filming the place is illegal because it's private property, even though the auditor himself is standing on a public place. This is not so. If it can be seen from a public place, it can be filmed.
In Finland, that might not always be the case, and somebody might even be able to successfully sue you.
For all these reasons, doing a "first amendment audit" in Finland is not really enticing. You could actually get in trouble with the police and the law, depending on what you do.
As long as they remain at a public space, what they are doing is perfectly legal, this right being guaranteed by the Constitution, and nobody has the right to make them stop. Of course that doesn't deter security guards, police officers, soldiers and other people from trying. Some of these videos can be quite hilarious, with some random security guard getting all angry about his authority not being respected (even though private security guards have exactly zero authority in a public space, and are nothing more than private citizens). Almost invariably the police will be called. The amount of scrutiny and even outright harassment from the police varies quite a lot, all the way from the police not even engaging with the photographer at all (or, at the very most, pretty much just saying "hello" and that's it), to outright civil rights violations (the worst cases ending up in court, with the photographer pretty much always winning), although these most extreme cases tend to be quite rare. The most common case is the police trying to intimidate the photographer and demand an ID (the amount of insistence on seeing ID also varying quite a lot, with some officers being really persistent), usually to no avail. These auditors know the law and know not to get intimidated by requests they aren't obliged to grant.
I have myself entertained the idea of doing this myself here, in Finland. However, the law is not the same here as it is in the United States, which makes it a bit less enticing of an idea. There are some crucial differences:
Most states in the United States do not have so-called "stop-and-ID" laws, which means that citizens are not obliged to show ID to police officers even if they ask for it, unless they have been lawfully detained or arrested because of an articulable suspicion of a crime. Since public photography is not a crime, the police cannot demand ID just for that, and the photographer can simply refuse.
Not so in Finland. Here the law states that if a police officer demands ID, you have to show it, or else you could be fined for insubordination. If the police wants to know who you are, they will know it, and there's no way around it. If you try to refuse, you could get arrested.
Likewise in the United States the police can't just demand a citizen to leave a public space willy-nilly. Photography, which is a completely legal activity, cannot be used as an excuse to demand a citizen to stop and leave. In Finland, however, the same law states that if a police officer orders a citizen to leave a place, even if it's a public place, the citizen has to obey (or be possibly fined for insubordination).
A "first amendment audit" (couldn't be really called that because it's not a "first amendment" in the Finnish constitution, but anyway) in Finland would thus not have such an impact. If whatever establishment you are filming decides to call the police, and the police decides to demand your ID and/or for you to leave the place, you have to obey. You have no recourse against this. The law is against you. Thus the establishment kind of "wins", if the police officers are so inclined.
Moreover, there are even more crucial differences:
In most of the United States, as the adage goes among auditors, "eyes cannot be trespassed", "whatever can be seen from a public space can be filmed", and most crucially, "there is no expectation of privacy in a public place."
Not so in Finland. Here there is an expectation of privacy even in a public place.
In the United States, if you are in a public place, you have zero privacy. Anybody can photograph and film you, and put the footage online completely uncensored, no matter what you are doing and how much you are embarrassing yourself, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
In Finland, it's illegal to publish footage of someone so that they are recognizable, and the publication of that footage could cause public embarrassment or other form of harm. Public photography is allowed, and you don't need to ask for people's permission, but you have to be careful what exactly you publish online, even if it has been fully filmed at a public place. You may need to conceal people's identities (eg. by blurring).
In the United States, if it can be seen from a public place, it can be filmed. It doesn't matter if it's a private place that can be seen; if it can be seen, it can be filmed. Not so in Finland. While public photography is generally allowed, you are not allowed to film the interiors or private residences, yards, gardens and so on, in a level of detail where they can be clearly seen. Especially you aren't allowed to photograph people inside these private residences.
In many First Amendment Audit videos a security guard will argue that filming the place is illegal because it's private property, even though the auditor himself is standing on a public place. This is not so. If it can be seen from a public place, it can be filmed.
In Finland, that might not always be the case, and somebody might even be able to successfully sue you.
For all these reasons, doing a "first amendment audit" in Finland is not really enticing. You could actually get in trouble with the police and the law, depending on what you do.
Comments
Post a Comment