From the City Clerk:
There has been some recent information circulating among state HR folks that there have been First Amendment Auditors working in the state – there has been no mention of their presence in the metro, but I thought a heads up may be warranted. For those who may be unaware, this is a social movement that tests the right to photograph and video record in public spaces. These are individuals who typically travel to areas considered public property such as sidewalks, post office or government buildings and openly record those spaces and persons in their view. They make the point that their movement promotes transparency and open government, but often times these interactions result in confrontations which are filmed and then uploaded to various social media platforms.
If you haven’t had discussions with your staff about the proper methods to handle these audits, please take time to do so. The bottom line for most of us (PD has additional considerations) is that as long as the ‘auditors’ are in public areas, are not putting themselves or others in danger, are not interfering with business, or persons doing business they have a right to film, record, or photograph. The best practice is to ignore them and allow them to be there so long as they are not putting anyone in danger or interfering with business.
Beth asked, “I need clarification: do individuals who wish to photograph or video in public spots have a right to do so to other members of the public within the building, without their permission? I was working under the assumption that they could film employees but not other members of the public without their permission. Is this correct?”
My response: “While we’ve inferred from our policies that patrons have the right to not be recorded by other patrons I don’t think that would stand up legally given that patrons can’t have an expectation of privacy when they’re in a public space. When the sole purpose of the person doing the recording is to catch public employees violating first amendment law, it’s probably wise to err on the side of leniency.”