Documenting the Truth: The Battle for Our Phones Against State Violence

The New Frontline: Our Smartphones

We are in a phone war. The ubiquitous presence of cameras embedded in cellphones has become a vital means of documenting state violence. But as history shows, the state is pushing back against those who bear witness.

A Pattern of Intimidation

Consider the tragic case of Alex Pretti, who was shot dead by federal agents in Minneapolis while he was merely holding his phone. Likewise, Renee Good's partner was filming a federal agent just moments before she was fatally shot. This pattern reveals a disturbing reality: agents are actively trying to obstruct citizens from documenting their operations.

“We are seeing a pattern of them intimidating people who are just trying to observe,” says Alicia Granse, a staff attorney at the A.C.L.U. of Minnesota, which is involved in litigation against the Department of Homeland Security's use of violent tactics. This underscores a critical argument: courts have long affirmed citizens' First Amendment rights to film in public. However, these rights are increasingly contested on the streets as federal agents attempt to suppress recordings of their activities.

The Right to Bear Cameras

Government officials have audaciously likened filming federal agents to acts of violence, igniting debate around accountability mechanisms. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem controversially stated that filming an agent constitutes “violence.” This rhetoric shifts the narrative surrounding our right to document abuses of power.

The founders of our nation recognized the dangers of a state monopoly on weapons, embedding the Second Amendment as a safeguard against tyranny. In today's landscape, where our phones serve as the primary tools for information warfare, we must champion our right to bear phones just as fiercely as we defend our right to bear arms. In the words of Second Amendment proponents, perhaps the only thing that can effectively combat a bad actor with a gun is a good actor with a camera.

A Vision of Accountability

This battle for documentation echoes sentiments expressed by science fiction author David Brin in his 1998 book, “The Transparent Society.” In a hypothetical duality, he suggested that cameras can either be used by a repressive state to surveil its citizens or by the populace to keep the state in check. The vital question is: who ultimately controls the cameras?

Counter-Narratives and Propaganda

As we face this struggle, it's important to recognize that the state isn't solely a spectator. The Trump administration has embarked on a propaganda campaign, showcasing its deportation operations on social media. Video montages of ICE agents apprehending individuals are meant to frame the narrative in favor of an aggressive enforcement strategy. Moreover, ICE agents have been documented using covert recording technologies to surveil protests.

The Implications of Suppression

The smartphone camera offers a beacon of hope for accountability. The importance of preserving evidence cannot be understated—what if even the individual capturing an act of violence is silenced? The recorded footage can serve as crucial evidence in future prosecutions. This rationale is often why oppressive regimes resort to cutting off internet access during times of unrest, aiming to silence voices and prevent the dissemination of videos that expose atrocities.

The Call to Action

The current climate is one that demands vigilance. The brave citizens of Minnesota and beyond are leading the way by insisting on their right to film federal agents in action. As Governor Tim Walz recently urged, “Carry your phone with you at all times” to document acts of violence. These recordings can play a pivotal role in creating a database of injustices that challenge the state's narrative.

As we navigate this turbulent period, we must remain steadfast and critically assess when the government seeks to stifle our efforts to document. We have a pressing duty to defend our right to film public servants carrying out their duties—after all, we fund their salaries with our tax dollars.