The pen may be mightier than the sword, but the video camera trumps them both.
As tensions between law enforcement officials and Occupy protestors have heightened in the past two weeks, videos taken by bystanders have given us important information as to the ways some police forces have handled the “cleanup” process.
For instance, on Nov. 18, campus police from the University of California Davis claimed that they were forced to defend themselves with pepper spray after being surrounded by Occupy student protestors. However, a video of the incident instead reveals a single police officer spraying pepper spray on a group of students huddling together on a cement floor.
The actual details of the event may be more complex than both the police’s account and the video indicate, but the students’ descriptions of the nausea and pain they suffered from the attack are a telling statement of a reality that can go unnoticed if it fails to be captured on film. Even more importantly, this incident speaks to the importance of something as simple as a camera in holding law enforcement officials accountable for their words and actions.
Yet, legislators are considering passing a law that forbids citizens from videotaping police officers while they are performing their duties. Specifically, state courts are examining whether videotaping police actions violates wiretapping statutes. Under North Carolina’s wiretapping statute, it appears that it would be difficult to prosecute a citizen who videotapes the police carrying out their duties, as the act allows videotaping where at least one party consents.
In other states, citizens have been consistently prosecuted for the act of videotaping police officers. Sharron Tasha Ford, a Florida resident, was arrested in 2009 for videotaping a police officer speaking to her son. She was not prosecuted, but the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city on her behalf, claiming the arrest as a violation of her First Amendment rights.
Then there’s Anthony Graber, a sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard, who videotaped a state trooper when he pulled out his gun when stopping Graber for speeding on his motorcycle. Not only did police search his home and take his computers, but he nearly faced 16 years in jail under the allegation of violating wiretap laws.
The legality of videotaping police officers has become an increasingly contentious issue, especially because YouTube now serves as an open platform for sharing videos. In a matter of hours, a video can go from seldom-viewed to viral. The UC Davis incident brings to mind other episodes of student protest, like the “Don’t Taze Me, Bro” student at the University of Florida, who became infamous for his act of defying police at a town hall forum when a video of the act was recorded and posted online.
Historically, we can’t forget the role videos played in bringing to light the civil rights violations of the 1960s. More recently, we can look to the use of videotapes to unveil discriminatory action by the police in 1991, when the beating of an African American, Rodney King, was caught on film. In addition to sparking widespread riots, the video led to the trial of four LAPD officers and the eventual conviction of two under federal charges of civil rights violations. The video of the Rodney King beating gives us another reason to believe in the power of film; without it, what evidence is there to separate history from myth?
Aside from the questionability of police action that officials claim should not be videotaped, the legality of videotaping raises the broader issue of our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and press. Do these rights even include the “right to record” (something I am sure the Founding Fathers were probably not considering when they were drafting the Constitution)?
There are obviously some things that should not be recorded to screen to the general public, like third-party recordings of events in private settings. But recording the actions of a police officer in the public sphere, whose acts should be neither confidential nor exceeding the bounds of his duty, should be afforded to us by our First Amendment rights.
The rapid spread of technology has given us the power to hold public officials more accountable for their actions, a potent, yet vital weapon in any democracy. It also raises the question of the extent to which citizens should go to expose the actions of these government agents.
Those who have some reason to fear the eyes of public scrutiny will say that videotaping police officers puts too much power in the hands of the people. But those who believe that democracy thrives on the voices of its citizens will say that if officials have no legitimate reason to hide from the eyes of the people, then they have no reason to hide from the eyes of their cameras.
Sony Rao is a Trinity junior. This is her final column of the semester.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.