Yesterday: what auditors do.
Today: why it is allowed.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and of the press.
Courts have consistently added the right to gather information about what the government is doing.
That includes filming.
The key case
In 2011 the First Circuit ruled in Glik v. Cunniffe:
“A citizen’s right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”
Simon Glik filmed officers arresting someone on Boston Common.
He was arrested.
The charges were dropped. The court was crystal clear: this is allowed.
Since then eight federal circuit courts have said the same.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on it directly yet, but the line is consistent.
Expectation of privacy
Here is the second pillar.
In public space people generally have no reasonable expectation of privacy for what is visible and audible.
That applies to ordinary citizens and to public officials.
You may film on the street, in a square, from the sidewalk.
Video and audio.
The line is drawn at places where privacy can reasonably be expected (toilet, changing room, private property) and at harassment or actively interfering with work.
The big difference is with government officials in their official capacity:
there the filming is extra strongly protected by the First Amendment.
The camera is then not just legal, but a form of checking power.
What it means in practice
An auditor does not need to ask for permission.
He films.
If someone tries to stop him, he asks for the legal basis.
That is not provocation.
That is the test.
Some auditors are annoying.
That does not change the law.
The coming days
Wednesday – Concrete cases (Long Island Audit, Patrick Ryder and closer to home John Melkins)
Thursday – The contrast with the Netherlands and Europe
Friday – What we can learn from this and how we build digital sovereignty
Question for you
Do you know the difference between “no privacy in public” and “I don’t want to be filmed”?
And how often is that difference still made in the Netherlands?
This post is 100% authentic and verifiable via:
https://openinternetmanifest.org/nl/hash-verifier
### RVN: 1st Amendment Auditors – the legal basis
Yesterday: what auditors do.
Today: why it is allowed.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and of the press.
Courts have consistently added the right to gather information about what the government is doing.
That includes filming.
### The key case
In 2011 the First Circuit ruled in *Glik v. Cunniffe*:
“A citizen’s right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”
Simon Glik filmed officers arresting someone on Boston Common.
He was arrested.
The charges were dropped. The court was crystal clear: this is allowed.
Since then eight federal circuit courts have said the same.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on it directly yet, but the line is consistent.
### Expectation of privacy
Here is the second pillar.
In public space people generally have no reasonable expectation of privacy for what is visible and audible.
That applies to ordinary citizens and to public officials.
You may film on the street, in a square, from the sidewalk.
Video and audio.
The line is drawn at places where privacy can reasonably be expected (toilet, changing room, private property) and at harassment or actively interfering with work.
The big difference is with government officials in their official capacity:
there the filming is extra strongly protected by the First Amendment.
The camera is then not just legal, but a form of checking power.
### What it means in practice
An auditor does not need to ask for permission.
He films.
If someone tries to stop him, he asks for the legal basis.
That is not provocation.
That is the test.
Some auditors are annoying.
That does not change the law.
### The coming days
- **Wednesday** – Concrete cases (Long Island Audit, Patrick Ryder and closer to home John Melkins)
- **Thursday** – The contrast with the Netherlands and Europe
- **Friday** – What we can learn from this and how we build digital sovereignty
**Question for you**
Do you know the difference between “no privacy in public” and “I don’t want to be filmed”?
And how often is that difference still made in the Netherlands?
#1stAmendment #ExpectationOfPrivacy #RightToRecord #Glik #FreeSpeech #RealityVsNarrative #RVN #OpenInternetManifest
https://openinternetmanifest.org
This post is 100% authentic and verifiable via:
https://openinternetmanifest.org/nl/hash-verifier
Deel dit bericht
Korte versie: Teaser voor X Raw Markdown: Exacte originele tekst (voor verifier) Unicode: Mooie opmaak voor Facebook / andere platforms
Comments
Want to comment? Log in with GitHub.
You can always read without an account.
💸 Support the Open Internet Manifest ❤️
This manifest only exists thanks to your donations.
Every satoshi or monero helps enormously (servers, domains, development).
Comments
Want to comment? Log in with GitHub.
You can always read without an account.