6 Sep 2011 | Uncategorized
A US court of appeals ruled this past week that citizens — whether they’re journalists or not — have a right under the First Amendment to peacefully film or record police officers on the job in public. The question has come up repeatedly as the widespread use of sophisticated camera-ready cell phones has enabled a level of transparency and accountability in public safety that potentially makes every civilian on the street on a backstop against police misconduct.
Police officers from Maryland to California have cited vague state wiretap laws to not only object to the practice but also arrest citizens caught doing it. Some state laws make it illegal to record audio or video of a person without his or her consent. Police officers have also argued that such footage violates their privacy.
Many legal scholars, though, have countered that such logic can’t reasonably extend to police officers performing their duties in public — and that such a policy clearly violates the public interest. A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously agreed, writing:
It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. … The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting ‘the free discussion of governmental affairs.’
The case began in October of 2007 when Simon Glik, a lawyer, shot video footage with his cell phone of police officers in Boston whom he believed were using excessive force to arrest a young man. Glik objected to one of the officers, explained that he had recorded footage, and was promptly arrested himself. His cell phone was also taken.
The charges against Glik — which also included disturbing the peace — were dismissed by a judge several months later. Glik attempted to file an internal-affairs complaint with the Boston Police Department against the officers involved. When that complaint went nowhere, he filed a lawsuit, in February 2010, against the officers arguing that his civil rights under the First and Fourth Amendment had been violated.
In siding with Glik, the court stressed that the right to collect information on public officials in public belongs equally to journalists and civilian bystanders, particularly in the age of “citizen journalism” and ubiquitous camera phones. The judges wrote:
Changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.
The decision was praised this week by the New York Times editorial board, the ACLU and legal scholars.
Emily Badger is Index’s US editor
6 Sep 2011 | Uncategorized
The state-owned California Science Center has been embroiled for two years in a legal dispute over a documentary critiquing evolution. The American Freedom Alliance, which says it “promotes, defends and upholds Western values and ideals” — apparently, among them, the dubious scientific theory of Intelligent Design — originally sought to air the film in the rented science center’s IMAX theatre in 2009.
The museum eventually canceled the documentary, Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record, for fear of appearing to endorse its claims. The American Freedom Alliance then sued, arguing that the government-run science center had violated the First Amendment by showing preference for one viewpoint (evolution) over another (intelligent design, generally considered to be a more publicly palatable version of religious-based creationism).
Last week the two reached a settlement: The science center is paying the American Freedom Alliance $110,000 to end the dispute, although, as the Los Angeles Times has pointed out, neither party is admitting wrongdoing in the unusual agreement. As part of the settlement, the science center agreed to invite the film back for a screening, and the American Freedom Alliance agreed to turn the invitation down.
Intelligent Design advocates are properly claiming victory, although their logic is slightly flawed. Said William J. Becker, Jr., the alliance’s lawyer: “It’s a vindication for ID, and First Amendment guarantees of free speech.”
While the latter may be true, the settlement hardly confers on intelligent design some new respectability in the eyes of public institutions. The notion that government may not suppress or favor the expression of certain ideas has nothing to do with whether or not those ideas have any merit.
17 Aug 2011 | Index Index, minipost
Local papers in Albemarle County, Virginia, have reported that Arthur Conan Doyle’s first Sherlock Holmes novel, A Study in Scarlet, has been removed from sixth-grade reading lists after a parent complained that it was “our young students’ first inaccurate introduction to an American religion.” In the book, in which a father and daughter are rescued by Mormons on condition they adopt the Mormon faith, Conan Doyle wrote that Mormons were “persecutors of the most terrible description”.
26 Jul 2011 | Uncategorized
In the days since Anders Behring Breivik — the accused perpetrator of Friday’s deadly attacks in Norway — has been identified as a Christian right-wing extremist, some liberals in the US have descended on the episode as another opportunity to draw a straight line between hard-right political causes and actual violence. The meme has been gaining steam since the early rise of the Tea Party, a group that occasionally celebrates its Second Amendment gun rights by toting weapons to public rallies.
“Norway, US, Worldwide — is Right-Wing Violence endemic?” asks a blog post on the popular liberal Internet enclave Fire Dog Lake. Explains the writer:
“Right-wing supporters, here in the US and around the world, have a long history of resorting to, or actually embracing, violence. People from politicians, to preachers to doctors have all been shot because of their perceived (and perhaps real) left leaning political views.”
The author then proceeds to compile a list of recent incidents involving right-wing violence, including mention of the January shooting of Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
ThinkProgress, a liberal blog affiliated with the progressive Center for American Progress, has published an oddly beside-the-point revelation that the “Norway Terrorist is a Global Warming Denier“, as if this contributes further damning evidence of the ideological similarity between mass murderers and run-of-the-mill conservatives. In another post, the blog cites “evidence that [Breivik] was a fan of far-right bloggers and political parties.”
It then uses the occasion to chastise Rep. Peter King, who has refused to include homegrown terrorism threats – read: threats from neo-Nazis and other domestic right-wing extremists — in his congressional hearings investigating the radicalisation of American Muslims. King, since the Norway attacks, has held to that position.
Of course, it would be preferable for King to abandon the hearings all together rather than to add domestic political partisans to his already dubious investigation of the Muslim community. But the hint of “endemic” right-wing violence poses a different challenge – and that’s that we head down a tricky path in trying to draw systemic conclusions about political ideology and specific incidents of bloodshed.
It’s possible — as has turned out to be the case with Giffords’ shooter — that the defining characteristic of Breivik and other such violent rogues isn’t their politics, but their mental instability. And conflating the two could be problematic for political speech in the long run.
Sarah Palin was widely indicted after the Giffords shooting, which left six dead in an Arizona strip-mall parking lot, for having produced a map of political opponents targeted in the 2010 election with gun-sight symbols over their districts. Pundits speculated that such a map could have motivated Jared Lee Loughner to take Palin’s suggestion literally. (Subsequently, there was no evidence Loughner ever even saw Palin’s campaign graphic.)
Since then, Americans have been struggling mightily with the consequences of political discourse, with what it means to be “civil” at a time of rising political acrimony, and with the murky causal connection between words, ideas and violent action. It’s an important discussion. But chalking up the Norway shooting as another example that “right-wing ideas = violence” doesn’t add much to it.
Joshua Foust, writing in The Atlantic, is equally firm on this point:
“In order to tar all of Europe’s right, even just the upsetting xenophobes clothing themselves in worry about jihad, you must demonstrate a causal mechanism by which concern over cultural outsiders becomes murderous rage against the very people you claim to protect (in this case, ethnic Norwegians). Without being too trite, it requires an especially deranged mind already far outside the mainstream to decide to slaughter children at summer camp just because it is run by a left-wing political party. Associating that sort of mentality with the mainstream is not just wrong and lazy, it is hypocritical.
Indeed, much of the Western’s left’s quasi-triumphalism over the Norwegian tragedy revolves around it’s complete non-relationship to Islamic terror. Here, so many seem to celebrate, is the proof they had finally sought that right-wing politics are not just annoying and wrong, but actively dangerous.”
That argument may be politically profitable in the short term. But in the long run, suggesting political beliefs — whether liberal or conservative — are synonymous with incitement to violence could wind up undermining the rights of even those making such an argument today.
