By Jason Stverak
In a landmark decision, a Federal court ruled last week that recording public officials, including police officers, is protected by the First Amendment. This decision, which may outrage law enforcement officials and members of Congress, is one of the first Federal court decisions that brings the First Amendment into the Internet Age.
This case emerged from separate incidents where private citizens utilized personal video cameras or cell phones to capture alleged police brutality.
The first occurred when Khaliah Fitchette, a New Jersey teenager, boarded a bus in Newark. As she waited for the bus to depart, two police officers boarded the bus to forcefullyremove a drunken passenger. Fitchette began taping the police officers and refused to quit upon officer request. She was then arrested and detained while the police deleted her footage. No charges were filed against Fitchette, but she filed a lawsuit against the Newark Police Department with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Jersey.
The second incident occurred in Boston when Simon Glik pulled out his cell phone to tape police officers punching a man on the street. An officer asked Glik if he was recording audio. When Glik admitted that he was, the officer arrested him for violating the state’s wiretap law. He also was charged with disturbing the peace and aiding the escape of a prisoner. The charges were eventually dropped due to lack of merit but, Glik joined the ACLU lawsuit, claiming his free speech rights had been violated.
This decision is especially relevant to those who consider themselves citizen journalists and are not given legal protection by state shield laws and formal credentials. According to the court decision:
[C]hanges 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.
[Page 13 of the Slip Opinion from Glik v. Cuniffe]
Although this decision does not clarify the much debated discussion on who counts as “the press.” It does state that freedom of the press and speech guaranteed in the First Amendment no longer just applies to salaried reporters.
The decision also acknowledges that current technological advancements have made the line between citizen journalists and mainstream media a little less defined. This is beneficial not only to anyone who produces news but also news consumers as well.
Many forget that when a newspaper goes under, it is not only those reporters who have lost their jobs that are affected. Entire communities are left without news coverage and left without access to vital information. Stepping up to fill the void left when a local newspaper cuts back or closes are citizen journalists. They have proven that it no longer takes press credentials or a New York Times business card to break national news. Citizen journalists have captured their local congressman in scandals and reported on the tax hikes that the state senator hoped no one would find. They do the same job that the “mainstream reporters” are doing without either a pay check or fancy office.
Citizen journalists are doing their part to keep our government officials accountable to the people. This is accomplished by attending a town hall meeting and reporting on the events. Or taking out their own cell phones and videotaping what they view as citizen injustice by the police. They are preserving democracy and making their hometowns a better place for their families and friends. It is a thankless service that our country cannot afford to dismiss.
By allowing citizens the protection to videotape government officials without fear of arrest and prosecution, this ruling is a victory for anyone who supports free speech. We welcome any and all citizen journalists who feel the need to take action to better their communities.
If you are a reporter or a citizen journalist and are interested in getting involved in non-profit journalism, please email Info@FranklinCenterHQ.org. For more information on Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity please visit www.FranklinCenterHQ.org.
Jason Stverak is the President of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a leading journalism non-profit organization. The Franklin Center is dedicated to providing investigative reporters and non-profit organizations at the state and local level with training, expertise, and technical support. For more information on the Franklin Center please visit www.FranklinCenterHQ.org.
