Photojournalists’ student or those already practicing their profession should not be treated differently. Meaning, they are both practicing the profession albeit on a different level, but it is important that as students of the course, the students should be able to know the boundaries of their role as photojournalists. In other words, there should be no distinction and the notion of fair play must be applied at all times so that in the event that they enter the world of mass media, they would not end up having issues just because they took a photo that is not appropriate and forbidden by law. The rule of asking permission first should be applied since aside from freedom of speech, photojournalists must value the freedom of privacy as well. In addition, the proposition imposed by the American Civil Liberties Union must be reviewed carefully. In this age where terrorism is rampant, there should be a strict control on what kind of information or situations should be photographed. For instance, if a cop is performing their duties like uncovering some important evidences involved in a crime, photojournalists must ask first the permission whether they can take a photograph of the victim or the crime scene provided that the reason is valid or falls within the public awareness or trials. In some cases, it is not good to blatantly take direct photographs of the victim as it might jeopardize the state's authority to investigate cases without the media. Based from the Porat vs. Lincoln Tower case, it is the duty of the photographers to communicate with their audiences; however, that really depends on the situation. If the case consists of a sensitive images like crime, drugs, or any issues that might involve the whole state in chaos, then photographers needed to obtain permission as well as to communicate with both the authorities and the public to inform the context of their pictures. Images without proper explanation or caption needs to be explained in order to be considered as protected content as well as to enlighten the public that the act was merely a tool for public information and no other parties and reasons are involved in it. YouTube and other forms of social media disperse information to a broader audiences and this makes a credible medium for publishing such explanations. (Kenworthy, Photography & the First Amendment). As a democratic state, the US authorities must respect the citizens’ right to have an access to information get involved in issues that concerns their safety and well-being. But as more and more people get an immediate access to this information, if the case is sensitive and requires further investigation and analysis, the authorities have the right to deny the individuals their privilege as taking pictures of the crime scene particularly those individuals who have been involved with some serious cases, the photographs might capture evidences which are not meant to be seen, thus, placing the whole case in jeopardy. With the advent of photo editing tools available on the internet at the public’s disposal, any picture taken straight from the crime scene might end up subjected to investigation and sometimes, might led to issues throughout the case. There are other countries aside from the United States that are far more restrictive in terms of public photography, for example, in communist countries such as China and North Korea, taking pictures of the public edifices especially if they are government offices are highly punishable by law. Therefore, the US has a way lenient laws compared to these countries since the US does not implement full censorship of the press unlike in these countries.
WORKS CITED
Kenworthy, Bill. “Photography & the First Amendment”. First Amendment Center. N.p., 2012. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.
