Ever since cameras became embedded in cellphones, people have been using their devices to bear witness to violence.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees five essential freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, it prevents the government from restricting expression, establishing a state religion, or interfering with peaceful protest and petitioning for redress of grievances.
Courts have long granted citizens a First Amendment right to film in public. But this right on paper is now being increasingly contested on the streets as federal agents try to stop citizens from recording their activities.
We are seeing a pattern of intimidation of people who are just trying to observe. A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the government from retaliating against peaceful observers and protesters. But that injunction was lifted on Wednesday by an appeals court.
Government officials have said that violence against agents includes “videotaping them where they are at, when they are out on operations.”
The nation’s founders worried that if the state had a monopoly on weapons, its citizens could be oppressed. Their answer was the Second Amendment. Now that our phones are the primary weapons of today’s information war, we should be as zealous about our right to bear phones as we are about our right to bear arms.
To adopt the language of Second Amendment enthusiasts, perhaps the only thing that can eventually stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a camera.
The difference between oppression and liberation, is, who will ultimately control the cameras.
The smartphone camera is a potent weapon because it offers the promise of future accountability. Even if the person filming is killed, the camera can preserve evidence of a crime that could be prosecuted in the future. A desire to evade such accountability is why governments engaged in violent repression often shut off internet access and thus prevent witnesses from sharing video and photos.
The best defense is to double down on documentation. Those who can afford the personal risk should keep filming. And those who can’t risk being on the front lines can support those doing the documenting in other ways.
We need to question whenever the government asks us to put away our phones — especially when it comes to filming people we pay with our tax dollars.
Source: New York Times
