Read on Twitter
Yeah, it's a much trickier balance than people realize.
On the one hand, you don't want folks ID'd with your footage.
On the other hand, there's often strategic advantage to making video of massive police overstep public, especially if the overstep is being ignored otherwise. https://twitter.com/raveneyes77/status/1274830481821966339
On the one hand, you don't want folks ID'd with your footage.
On the other hand, there's often strategic advantage to making video of massive police overstep public, especially if the overstep is being ignored otherwise. https://twitter.com/raveneyes77/status/1274830481821966339
That's one reason why I'm an advocate for being thoughtful about how your photos can be used and making efforts to be smart about it and practice good opsec.
But that potential advantage is why I don't love seeing white people being like, "no protest photos, ever"
But that potential advantage is why I don't love seeing white people being like, "no protest photos, ever"
Photos can be used to show strength by demonstrating numbers, they can be used to document police misconduct and make its existence undeniable.
There are advantages to banning them, advantages to posting them, advantages to saving them for legal to review.
There are advantages to banning them, advantages to posting them, advantages to saving them for legal to review.
Each of those options also have disadvantages, too.
No photos period means no documentation, even when it could be helpful.
No photos posted means less visibility.
Limited posting and legal review when in doubt means some visibility, but in a delayed and limited way.
No photos period means no documentation, even when it could be helpful.
No photos posted means less visibility.
Limited posting and legal review when in doubt means some visibility, but in a delayed and limited way.
"go wild post everything!" introduces a lot more visibility but also a lot more risk.
You can make smart choices about photo selection and opsec practices with a strong eye to context (ie is this likely to get used as evidence against someone later) and cover a lot (but of course not all) opsec bases.
If there's instruction from the organizers on photos, I listen to that.
If there's no instruction and it's something really safe/privileged like Women's March, I'm not going to be as super-careful about face protection in photos.
If there's no instruction and it's something really safe/privileged like Women's March, I'm not going to be as super-careful about face protection in photos.
If there's no instruction, no apparent general consensus on photos, and it's something where there's likely to be harsh, targeted police targeting (like recent uprising protests), I'm going to be really really careful and do my best to err on the side of opsec if I post at all.
But stuff like the dramatic 676 footage is exactly the reason I don't think it's white people's place to be like "PHOTOS R BANNED FROM NOW ON."
It's never white folks' place to making sweeping strategic decisions/calls on behalf of Black movement.
It's never white folks' place to making sweeping strategic decisions/calls on behalf of Black movement.
