The First Amendment Is the Last Line of Defense

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

As a student journalist, the power of the written word is understood. The words of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution might be the most powerful ever written. Without that sentence, think of all the words in your lifetime that might not have read. Think of all the words you would never get the opportunity to read, hear, write or speak. We often take these freedoms for granted, and I am thankful that those people before me were able to come together to agree on such profound principles. And even in today’s political climate, the first amendment is one thing that we all can agree is foundational to the rights and freedom of everyone.

The past couple weeks we have been talking about our rights as photojournalists and the code of ethics that all visual storytellers must follow. Without these rights and ethics, the entire field of journalism is compromised. The entire goal of journalism is to find and tell the truth. It is the duty of all journalists, both written and visual, to tell a story objectively and expose the truth for whatever it is, no matter how painful. As soon as the ethics are compromised, the entire goal of journalism is nonexistent.

This section was prefaced with the three foundations of ethical decision-making: utilitarian, absolutist, and the golden rule. We all know the Golden Rule as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In photojournalist ethics, this case comes up in an example of the choice to shoot a grieving mother or not. Would you want to be photographed if you were in such a sad state?

The absolutist is the philosophy that rights are in place and we should always abide by them no matter what. So, any benefit to shooting a photo of grief or crime is out of the question to the absolutist if it violates what they deem an individual’s right to privacy.

The utilitarian, of which I would describe myself, is that you must pursue what is of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. Our book used the example of a family standing over their drowned son (pg 400). Many would say this shouldn’t be published because it is too gruesome. An utilitarian would argue that exposure to this photo could potentially save lives from similar incidents in the future. In fact, the photo in this example did just that.

The thing I learned most during this section of the class are the specific instances in which a photographer can and cannot shoot. The rights of a photojournalist were something I always had a solid grasp on. It is not as simple as “if it’s in public you can shoot it” like I had always thought. The rights of the photographer can very easily clash with the many individual rights to privacy. For example, if shooting an accident, the victim’s right to privacy begins the moment he or she enters the emergency vehicle (pg 456).

From ethics, to law, to manipulating photos, the truth is ultimately of the utmost importance to me. As a visual storyteller, it might be tempting to create the most enticing scene possible, but once the truth is compromised its value is diminished to me.

I also took the “Press Freedom Quiz” from the Student Press Law Center, and I scored 8/10. I encourage my readers to give it a shot and see if they are up to speed on the rights of visual storytellers.