RVN: 1st Amendment Auditors – the contrast with the Netherlands and Europe
Over the past few days we looked at what 1st Amendment Auditors do, why it is legally allowed, and which concrete examples exist.
Today the contrast: what is allowed here and what is not?
America in short
In the United States, filming police officers and public officials who are performing their official duties in public space is a clear First Amendment right. Multiple federal circuit courts have confirmed this. Officials in that situation have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The camera is a legitimate instrument of accountability.
The Netherlands and Europe
Here the picture is more complex.
In the Netherlands you may in principle film in public space. This also applies to police officers and civil servants doing their work, as long as you do not obstruct their duties. During demonstrations this right is relatively strong, because it falls under freedom of expression and the right to protest.
When it comes to publishing those images the situation is more nuanced. Portrait rights and the GDPR give ordinary citizens strong protection. For officials acting in their official capacity there is more room, especially when there is news value or when it concerns checking power. The journalistic exception and the legitimate interest ground are regularly accepted in practice. Still, it remains greyer and riskier than in the United States. What is called “accountability” there can more quickly be framed as a privacy violation here.
In practice, officers and officials often react dismissively or defensively when they are being filmed. Threats of arrest or confiscation of the phone occur, even when the law does not allow it. The cultural reflex is reversed: the government films us as a matter of course, while citizens who film the government are more quickly seen as a nuisance or suspect.
That culture has not completely disappeared. People like John Melskens still document. But it is smaller, riskier and less self-evident than in America.
The real difference
In America there is a living culture in which the citizen may control the state with a camera.
In the Netherlands and Europe that culture is weaker and the legal space is smaller. That difference is not a detail. It determines whether power has to take itself seriously.
Tomorrow we close the series with the question of what we can learn from this and how we build digital sovereignty.
Question for you
Have you ever filmed a police officer or civil servant in the performance of their duties in the Netherlands?
And what was the reaction?
This post is 100% authentic and verifiable via:
https://openinternetmanifest.org/nl/hash-verifier
### RVN: 1st Amendment Auditors – the contrast with the Netherlands and Europe
Over the past few days we looked at what 1st Amendment Auditors do, why it is legally allowed, and which concrete examples exist.
Today the contrast: what is allowed here and what is not?
### America in short
In the United States, filming police officers and public officials who are performing their official duties in public space is a clear First Amendment right. Multiple federal circuit courts have confirmed this. Officials in that situation have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The camera is a legitimate instrument of accountability.
### The Netherlands and Europe
Here the picture is more complex.
In the Netherlands you may in principle film in public space. This also applies to police officers and civil servants doing their work, as long as you do not obstruct their duties. During demonstrations this right is relatively strong, because it falls under freedom of expression and the right to protest.
When it comes to publishing those images the situation is more nuanced. Portrait rights and the GDPR give ordinary citizens strong protection. For officials acting in their official capacity there is more room, especially when there is news value or when it concerns checking power. The journalistic exception and the legitimate interest ground are regularly accepted in practice. Still, it remains greyer and riskier than in the United States. What is called “accountability” there can more quickly be framed as a privacy violation here.
In practice, officers and officials often react dismissively or defensively when they are being filmed. Threats of arrest or confiscation of the phone occur, even when the law does not allow it. The cultural reflex is reversed: the government films us as a matter of course, while citizens who film the government are more quickly seen as a nuisance or suspect.
That culture has not completely disappeared. People like John Melskens still document. But it is smaller, riskier and less self-evident than in America.
### The real difference
In America there is a living culture in which the citizen may control the state with a camera.
In the Netherlands and Europe that culture is weaker and the legal space is smaller. That difference is not a detail. It determines whether power has to take itself seriously.
Tomorrow we close the series with the question of what we can learn from this and how we build digital sovereignty.
**Question for you**
Have you ever filmed a police officer or civil servant in the performance of their duties in the Netherlands?
And what was the reaction?
#1stAmendment #FilmingInPublic #Privacy #Netherlands #Europe #Accountability #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.