Yes, Photojournalists Are Allowed To Film You Being Racist

Yes, Photojournalists Are Allowed To Film You Being Racist

As the discourse around Black Lives Matter and police reform grows ever coarser, racism is revealing itself through protests in all small corners of the country. And that means communities unfamiliar with the role of photojournalists are encountering firsthand the consequences of exercising free speech to spew hate in public spaces.

The disconnect was on full display this weekend in Smithtown, New York, a town of about 117,000 that’s more than 95% white. Local activists with the Long Island Peaceful Protest group planned a rally for Saturday, March 6, to protest the town’s handling of “Thin Blue Line” flags on its fire trucks. They had been there for years, but had recently been removed, then put back after residents complained. The demonstrators planned to march from the train station to the nearby firehouse to express their dismay over the town’s use of a flag that has been in recent years co-opted by racists to attack Black Lives Matter protesters. Throughout the week, a “Back the Blue” counterprotest movement was building, and by Saturday, there were more than 100 “Back the Blue” supporters waiting for the 30 or so Long Island Peaceful Protest marchers. 

Predictably, it got ugly. Just take a look at this person, who blocked me, and told me to "Go back to where you came from" as I tried to cover the event with my journalism students:

I have seldom felt fear of physical harm as a photojournalist, but I did fear this person, who was lunging at me with the flag. It turned out my fears were justified, as he later pushed a young black videographer to the ground and fled the scene. I did try to take a picture of him after that happened, and he angrily told me to stop taking pictures of him as he slipped through a fence.

And I got that a lot. As a photojournalist of color, many “Back the Blue” protestors assumed that I was automatically “against” their side. I was there, like my students, to document what happened and let the photos speak for themselves. I think the photo at the top of this post, for instance, says enough. You may even recognize this particular racist from a previous article I wrote on this topic.

A Right To Photograph

The protestors themselves weren’t really saying much when it came to giving me their names, however. Ordinarily, I don’t have trouble getting most people to talk to me for a photo caption. Most with the Long Island Peaceful Protest group did share their identities, and faces, in photos of this protest. However, whenever I pointed my camera at many “Back the Blue” counterprotesters, masks were pulled up, and cries of “No pictures bro,” and “I’m going to shove that camera up your f*cking a*s” followed. One protestor even tracked down my Instagram to leave a comment that I was “doxing” [sic] people in his group:

A commenter accused me of trying to "dox" them while I was engaged in photojournalism.

Funny what @itsyahboyruss considers “respectfully.” Photojournalism isn't doxxing, and it's hard to dox someone when their face is covered by a mask and they refuse to give a name.

Don't Be a Jerk

Whatever the case may be, I often try to follow the “don’t be an a*shole” rule of photography. If someone respectfully asks not to be photographed, I’ll generally move on and shoot someone else. It’s a protest, and there are plenty of other people that don’t mind photographs or at least won’t raise an issue. I may not always get a name out of those people, but at least I’m not getting attacked or threatened.

Supporters of the Long Island Peaceful Protest encountered a large group of "Back the Blue" counter-protestors as the march moved past the Smithtown Fire Department on Saturday, March 6, 2021 to protest the town’s placement of “thin blue line” flags on its fire trucks.

I don’t have to honor their request. There’s no expectation of privacy in this or any public space, and so, perhaps it’s time to clarify what a photojournalist can and cannot do in this context, and it’s pretty simple:

If you’re on a public street in a public place, anybody with a camera, whether it’s a cell phone or Nikon D6, has the right to photograph you doing whatever it is you’re doing — whether that’s espousing racism or fighting against it.

Wasim Ahmad's picture

Wasim Ahmad is an assistant teaching professor teaching journalism at Quinnipiac University. He's worked at newspapers in Minnesota, Florida and upstate New York, and has previously taught multimedia journalism at Stony Brook University and Syracuse University. He's also worked as a technical specialist at Canon USA for Still/Cinema EOS cameras.

Log in or register to post comments
171 Comments
Previous comments

"under siege" lololololol

You probably wouldn't be laughing if it was happening in your neck of the woods.

Funny you mention triggered when you're the one running around like a chicken with its head cut off commenting on almost all the posts. Based off your very first comment, seems you were already bracing to be triggered. LOL LOL

Hahaha, calm 'yo self, Skippy.

Ah, If you were referring to that swastika comment, it just makes you look asinine. You are basically ok with history repeating itself by allowing white supremacists steal another symbol. Even the looney liberal social media giants haven't removed the a-ok emoticon from their apps.

There, you can cry yourself to sleep now. Happy to help.

Spoken like a true Woke Supremacist.

That's totally a real thing, absolutely not an insane thing to say

This dude literally said that we "allow" white supremacists to co-opt symbols. Like they don't just do it on their own. We "allowed" them to steal the Swastika.

The onus of responsibility is always on the victims, not the perpetrators with these people.

Projection projection projection. Yyyyeahh, you're the folks having a hissy fit over the symbol used by them white folk.

I'd share my bacon with you but sounds like your blood pressure is high as it is.

Maybe watch some actual daily video footage of what is going on there. Trapping people in a federal building and then starting a fire is what i would consider a siege.

Kinda like the, oh what was it, siege on the United States f*cking Capitol?

Riiiight, because what happened at the federal building is totally the same thing as what happened at the Capitol. Surely, you can't be this clueless.

So you are assuming he ment to go where? Likely all he meant was, you are not from our town, go back to your own town. Doesn't mean he was racist, just that he was an out of towner, and this protest was an internal problem.

“If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.”

Sorry, dont need a bridge, just stories that aren't so agenda driven.

I dare you to not respond to these topics without mentioning Antifa (which is not a real organized group, by the way) or BLM.

They also have no actual principles.

They cry free speech when twitter bans someone - because they don't understand the Constitution they profess to love so much, since Twitter is a private company. But then if someone takes a picture of them, suddenly the same amendment that protects free speech is awful and shouldn't be allowed.

It's an incredibly consistent theme for conservatives. Republican is accused of sexual harassment? "Guilty until proven innocent." A Democrat is accused of sexual harassment? They blow their lids over it and demand the person be punished.

That's what happens when you entirely lack actual principles - they're really just people that believe whatever benefits them and then dislikes things that don't, even if they're the same thing.

And unlike Republicans, Democrats actually (at least try to) hold other Dems accountable. Franken, currently Cuomo, who is refusing to resign but many Dems are calling on him to (same thing happened a while back with the governor of Virginia).

Likely the only reason they are calling for him to resign, is to cover for the 15,000 deaths in nursing homes that he was directly responsible for.

He has written about BLM and Antifa. He downplays them as peaceful protestors.

To be fair they were mostly peaceful protests, especially when you're looking at them relatively. The racists stormed the capitol, I mean how anyone can try and flip things and point fingers is absurd.

Mostly peaceful protests? You sound like CNN. And, therein lies the problem. Turning a blind eye to the devastation the BLM and Antifa has done. The Capitol didn't look anything this, correct?

People being more concerned about a burned down liquor store or a flipped car than the police murders of black people is exactly the reason this stuff happens.

If you were being murdered on the spot for literally doing nothing except reaching for your wallet or because some dumbass decided to pin you to the ground so you couldn't breathe, you'd get angry and burn some shit down too.

na

Well, when the cops say, don't move. It means don't move. When they say put your hands where I can see them, it means put your fucking hands where they can see them. See, simple.

Yes, not putting your hands "where I can see them" - a super vague term in and of itself and by definition wholly subjective - is deserving of the fucking death penalty if you don't do it exactly the way they want.

Running away, and thus presenting no threat, is also deserving of the death penalty.

Here in American The Great we just fucking murder people because we don't like what they did.

na

The FBI says right wing extremists are their number one concern. Not BLM or Antifa.

Typical slow-ass knuckledragger, you're dismissing the damage and devastation of the 6% (even if I were to believe those numbers). Think about all the lives taken and ruined; the cost of the lost/damaged businesses due to the BLM riots.

Pumpkin, I already gave you my take on the it.

Apologize he says. LOL. You and your fake posturing as your legs quiver. You take after your masters.

"Think about all the lives taken"

Exactly how many lives were "taken"?

Here's a REAL fact....

"Trump frequently accuses the far-left of inciting violence, yet right-wing extremists have killed 329 victims in the last 25 years, while antifa members haven't killed any, according to a new study"

https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-329-since-199...

"while antifa members haven't killed any, according to a new study"

Now, that's LOL. Most of you don't even want to admit "Antifa" exists.

"Most of you don't even want to admit "Antifa" exists."

[citation needed]

I also can't help but notice that you failed to address your claim about "all the lives taken", and instead, tried a weak attempt at deflection.

Figures lie and liars figure. It is also a fact that 100% of the violent protests last year involved BLM and antifa. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

"It is also a fact that 100% of the violent protests last year involved BLM and antifa."

lol!

Wrong again!

Considering how well read you apparently are, who, pray tell, were the other protestors?

Panning a digital video camera through a crowd producing skewed, unusable framing is not journalism. Its surveillance. These racist’s should be surveilled, to deter possible violence, but don’t call such garbage video, journalism.

I should have made that more clear - I had a body camera on me - was for my own safety and not what I was primarily capturing. My students and I were there as still photographers. The footage was from the body camera that was clipped to my camera bag’s shoulder strap.

That's actually pretty smart. Probably a good idea for any type of photographer. Thru the years everyone has seen reporters/photographers, etc get their cameras slapped away and destroyed (happens on all sides of the fence-even the tabloid photographers). Having a small pocket/body camera will record the incident for police/insurance documentation.

The article was pretty clear he was there as a photojournalist, not for video.

But way to make assumptions and insult Wasim.

I see the gang is all here...So, once more assistant professor has posted an article to the site dedicated to photography without a single reference to the camera, camera settings, shooting conditions, etc. I agree with Kash Johnson below, assistant professor here and Andy Ngo do have something in common, neither is a photographer.

Totally mentioned a D6 in that last paragraph.

--- "I think the photo at the top of this post, for instance, says enough."

You mean with the a-ok sign?

Whew, luckily, my logic, reason, and common sense is still in tact so it's just a-ok to me.

What I'm saying is the a-ok sign has been around since forever and it didn't have anything to do with white power. My logic, reason, and common sense blocks me from subscribing to the idiotic notion especially since it was probably started by some internet nerds.

Dude, you know damn well anyone could still use that gesture if they were just talking to someone and actually saying a-ok.

These people aren't doing it because they're saying something is a-ok. Like why do you think they're doing it? For fun?

This shit isn't difficult.

Dude, tell that to this poor guy that lost his job. And, he isn't even white. And, he didn't even use the actual a-ok sign. He used his ring finger and thumb, not index finger and thumb which collaborates him stating he was just cracking his fingers.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/502975-california-man-...

There's been others that have lost their jobs over this.

Oh, Timothy, appears you're lost in your own overzealous context rhetoric, sadly. You still missed the point, my dear simpleton.

You are an idiot, that shit was made up from whole cloth, debunked long ago!

His hand gesture is widely known as a white power symbol. He was making it in almost every photo I have of him and that my students took as well. I assure you, he was not A-OK the entire time.

More comments