release

Tom points to the debate between Jeff Harrell and Derek Powazek about taking pictures in public places where they are supposedly prohibited. Jeff says:

Derek clearly sees this as an issue of civil rights; I see it as an issue of basic civility…. More and more, we’re hearing the “I’m going to do whatever I want, and asking me to stop is a violation of my God-given rights” idea being expressed, and that’s simply wrong. Life in a pluralistic society is about compromise; there are no absolute liberties. We all sacrifice some measure of our liberty in order to secure the benefits we gain from living together as a group. We get things like roads and schools and art and culture, but in return we have to accept some basic responsibilities. Like the responsibility to be civil toward each other.

Jeff argues that photographers foisting themselves where they are not wanted exercise bad manners and breach that civility he values so highly. Derek’s philosophy is one of civil liberties:

In a post 9/11 age of paranoia and suspicion, public photography is increasingly seen as threatening, or mistaken as criminal. And we here at JPG are sick of it. The theme [is] meant to remind everyone that amateur photographers are the documentarians of real life. People with cameras bear witness to the everyday dramas of ordinary people. We capture our world to help us understand it.

Neither side is absolutely right, but I think the truth is closer to Derek’s side than Jeff’s. Paparazzi who hound and harass well-known figures, even in public places, in order to get the front page picture for the glossy newsrag, may be exercising their civil rights but intrude into the rights of others to do so. In such a case, Jeff is right: don’t be an ass. But that’s not the point of the “Photography is not a Crime” event. Pictures of public places, public buildings, public landscapes and the like are fair game even in a compromise-dependent civil society.

Jeff’s foundational assumption is wrong. Just because someone puts up a sign or posts a security guard does not mean they have the right to prohibit photography, to confiscate cameras, or to destroy or delete pictures or film. Any idiot can have a policy, but civility doesn’t demand that we respect that policy if it’s wrong. Part of civility is that we shouldn’t post security guards to prevent public photography. Part of civility is not overreaching, not imposing your will where it doesn’t belong. Jeff’s theory of adulthood - “don’t be an ass” - applies equally to the picture takers and the picture banners.

Ultimately, civility demands that we put incivility in its place. Being an adult does not require us to be sheep. It requires us to take responsibility for our own actions and also for our freedoms. When those freedoms are unduly restricted, everyone loses. Not everyone answers the call to defend those freedoms, but everyone benefits from those who do. Our country was founded by people who risked their honor, their lives, their fortunes standing up to the world’s most powerful sovereign in the name of freedom.

Does taking a picture in the subway rise to that level? Only in the rarest of circumstances. But civil society is just a little bit poorer if no one goes for the shot when the shot is there.