London Community Support Officers Bully A Videographer About Filming in Public Spaces

June 28, 2008 | Filed Under Legal Issues, Politician | Comments Off

The act of filming or photographing subjects in a public space is a contentious issue these days, especially when confronted by a police officer who feels it is within his or her legal authority to control such behavior. The issue pits two rights against each other: the right of privacy versus freedom of the press. In a democracy, freedom of the press trumps the right of privacy when the subject is present in a PUBLIC SPACE.

The argument is simple: a person who ventures out of his or her home or some other private property has no reasonable expectation, once they have stepped foot into a public space, of maintaining their privacy. A person’s actions in public spaces are open to view and therefore the mechanical recording of those actions by a law-abiding citizen is perfectly allowable. In essence, your right to privacy ends the moment your actions are viewable from a public space.

Freedom of the press to record any actions in a public space protects the fundamental nature of a Democracy: you are being held accountable for your public behavior. The evidence of your behavior provides the basis upon which your actions can later be held accountable to the laws of society. If you deny freedom of the press, the social contract and laws that govern all human behavior becomes a folly of authoritarian agendas where the human spirit is subjugated to the will of a those who value power and control over personal expression.

Suppression of freedom of press destroys a citizen’s right to privacy. You can’t have one without sacrificing the other.

The above video nicely demonstrates what happens when those invested with authority choose to enforce laws with little or no understanding of the reciprocal rights of those they are confronting. The reply of “Because I told you to” is the hobgoblin that not only fails the public trust but infects the human spirit with a logic that trades freedom for conformity under the guise of expediency.

I, for one, will have none of it.