When Undercover Activism Meets Journalism
My latest at The Daily Beast concerns Le Affair ACORN.
Here’s an excerpt to whet your appetite:
As a First Amendment extremist, I’d prefer that anyone doing journalism, of the citizen or professional variety, be exempted from wiretap laws. My guess is that the benefits of that approach would outweigh the costs, though I acknowledge the latter, and that reasonable people might disagree.
So here I propose a less sweeping piece of legislation: it ought to be legal for any citizen of the United States to record any elected official or employee whose salary is partly or wholly paid with taxpayer dollars, whether he or she is a police officer, an esteemed United States Senator, or a lowly community organizer. That rule would help undercover sleuths keep government and the enterprises it funds accountable, whether through ideologically motivated activism, journalistically motivated investigative reporting, or whatever mix arises in this new era of democratized media.
Do click through — Tina Brown demands your eyeballs!
UPDATE:
Oh my Lord, the San Bernardino ACORN office is staffed by a woman openly talking about the pre-meditated murder of her abusive husband, and offering to murder again if anyone exposes the underage brothel the undercover filmmakers are planning to run.
And that isn’t even the worst of what she says!
One so far unremarked upon but remarkable aspect of these videos is how adept the people at these offices are at gaming the system. Honestly, I’d never have believed it all. I’m predisposed to think there is some low-level corruption going on in these kinds of organizations, having gotten that vibe being around them as a local reporter, but this is immorality and poor management on a level that shocks me anew with each video’s release.
Wait, what? So one should be required to give up their right to privacy just because they work for the government? You can wiretap my house because my company received a government grant? Seems unfair to me.
Any such law would need to distinguish between recording someone in the course of their government-paid-for duties, and recording them in their private life. Maybe that’s what you intended, but it’s not obvious from the article.
Another thought: Doesn’t the same logic mean that if I’m a shareholder in a company I should be allowed to start recording the company’s employees?
— cwk · Sep 15, 07:10 PM · #
CWK,
Yes, I see that it isn’t clear in my article, but you’re right — the proper rule, and the one I intended to advocate, would encompass the person’s official actions, as in the ACORN investigation.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Sep 15, 09:39 PM · #
I can’t help but see this as a radical disincentive to government service without any upside for the employees themselves; obviously a feature, not a bug for libertarians, but rather worrying in a society with a substantial and growing government sector. Will we pay employees more in order to make up for their loss of privacy? Alternately, would CWK’s proposal also be reasonable, at least for the shareholders?
— The Fool · Sep 15, 10:51 PM · #
Conor,
Great, that eliminates my primary objection. I’m largely in favor of government transparency, but as someone who gets a paycheck from a state university, I don’t think that transparency should extend to my private life.
I do think raises the prospect of an interesting discussion. Under what circumstances should the government be allowed to conceal information from its stakeholders? How about a private company versus it’s stakeholders? Should the rules be different? Why or why not?
— cwk · Sep 16, 02:04 AM · #
Clearly, what this country needs is wiretaps in the offices of tax-payer funded community theaters.
— Criminally Bulgur · Sep 16, 02:25 AM · #
I quite agree with cwk’s amendment and am glad to see you agree. The recent British wiretapping scandal shows the risk there
One point you didn’t explicitly mention but may bear thinking about is that the military, DoD, and intelligence community would all be covered by this proposal. Also, classifications issues aside, I do think that there’s a legitimate interest in allowing for non-public negotiation be it between countries or parties.
In any event, it isn’t nearly as radical, but I think the furthest I’d be willing to go is that it would be legal to record your interactions with public figures. So you can wire yourself or your phone, but not their phone or bug their house.
— Greg Sanders · Sep 16, 02:51 AM · #
The law in my home state is that a recording is permissible as long as one of the people being recorded knows that the recording is happening. So BigGovernment would be able to do their thing, but they wouldn’t be able to hide a bug in a flowerpot. I think that strikes me as fair whether dealing with public officials or not.
— Trumwill · Sep 16, 05:52 AM · #
I like the idea, but I doubt anything resembling a clear law could be written.
You might be better off leaving it intentionally vague, by instituting a “journalistic interest” exception to wiretapping statutes, rather than trying to define the list of people subject to the law.
I’m a TA at a state university. Every interaction in class, or perhaps just any interaction around the department, seems to be an official action as a government employee. Yet unless I’m doing something illegal or extremely unethical, I don’t think anyone ought to have the right to constantly tape me. I mean, my life is pretty boring and I don’t know who’d want to tape me. But I wouldn’t mind a bit of legal reassurance here.
— Justin · Sep 16, 08:13 AM · #
What’s your take on this press release from Acorn?
— Humphry Slocum · Sep 16, 04:42 PM · #
Conor: You may want to back off the thing about the murder. See here and here
— Mike P · Sep 16, 05:21 PM · #