I am from US and I often watch 1st amendment auditing/filming in public videos on YouTube for entertainment. If you haven’t seen these videos before, it is basically a person or an “auditor” filming inside / outside of public places and publicly accessible areas that include government services buildings. Of which, in the eyes of the law, is publicly property through taxation. Places such as city halls, libraries, courthouses, post offices, and police stations. And filming government workers / police, or “public servants”, in the course of their duties to see how they react or “respect” peoples rights.

Sometimes, these auditors, or the people making these videos, also film outside of private banks or private shopping areas/stores. Facing the windows or entrances. But doing so from public space, like on the sidewalk. I have included several examples below this body of text. These types of videos are not considered pranks.

The response from people (the government workers, police, or general public) towards the person filming is often confrontational, annoyed, or angry. And in more extreme cases, the person filming gets assaulted. Or the police try to pressure them into presenting their ID or threatens arrest, which can result in a lawsuit.

Now I don’t necessarily think these auditors are always engaging in normal, respectful, or socially acceptable behavior. You definitely need to be a type or a little unhinged to do this. And I wouldn’t disagree there is an argument one could make that they are just intentionally trying to create discomfort for people to draw negative reactions for going viral on YouTube. But it’s also kind of the point to normalize one’s legal right to film. Moreover, they are correct that it is completely legal and deemed a 1st amendment / freedom of press activity by the constitution / courts.

Admittedly, I can find these videos highly entertaining to watch for a public freak out over something that doesn’t always need to become so serious. And in many cases, watching people be very misinformed about laws on public filming, in which they get an “education”. BUT filming in general, in a more serious way, it can actually hold police / police culture in America accountable when they attempt to intimidate or assert unwarranted authority over completely legal actions and behavior.

With respect to Norway, I am curious what the laws are for filming in public or government buildings/areas, such as in these videos? How do the laws compare or how restrictive are they compared to the USA? And how do you think your average Norwegian, police, or government worker would respond and react to such behavior, as in these videos?

I personally wouldn’t do this type of thing myself, and I am very doubtful your average Norwegian would either (nor would it really even be necessary), but I am curious how Norwegian society compares in this regard. Very interested to read thoughts on this topic.

Examples:

Long Island audit (typically films in government buildings)

https://youtu.be/AsxNf54ep1Q?si=4-aXsDCPA8tOH6j4

https://youtu.be/EiFCR414G7c?si=3wW2Qh4Wy-sTGSQI

Bay Area Transparency (often films outside police facilities)

https://youtu.be/-3dBku_k02M?si=n80gKlnM-7raJvJQ

Amagansett Press (usually films shopping areas or stores/restaurants. Not very honest)

https://youtu.be/3gag-fiprdc?si=-6brSU0xbZqMcRG3

KULT news (often films outside of banks)

https://youtu.be/HxCpRb0E2C4?si=ebiBqS1CzpoCL-r7

Too Apree (he is mostly a blend of public filming/pranks but also does what is a essentially a parody of auditors)

https://youtu.be/ozNiI0lHXwg?si=PEBdfvggMpiapHb6

Audit the Audit is also another good channel breaking down the legality of police interactions or general audits if you are very interested

by Death_by_Friday

10 comments

  1. This may be the tip of the iceberg, but it’s a start. I didn’t bother fine reading the translation so take it with a pinch of salt.

    “104. The right to own image
    Photographs depicting a person may not be reproduced or displayed publicly without the consent of the person depicted, except when

    a. the depiction is current and of general interest
    b. the depiction of the person is less important than the main content of the image
    c. the picture reproduces gatherings, public processions in the open air or conditions or events of general interest
    d. a copy of the image is normally displayed as an advertisement for the photographer’s business and the person depicted does not impose a ban, or
    e. the image is used as referred to in section 33 second paragraph or section 37 third paragraph.”

    [This ](https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2018-06-15-40/KAPITTEL_8#%C2%A7104) is the source. Feel free to dive deeper, but it’s all in Norwegian so you’d have to translate as you go.

  2. This is not a thing in Norway. Nobody is going to care if you film outside, and government services are allowed to prohibit filming inside of their buildings. The police are allowed to make people identify themselves, and to require people who are being a nuisance to leave the area.

  3. This I think is viewed in Norway more as a symptom of the confrontational, polarised society in the US, and I for one have viewed these and thought both the filmer and “filmees” often seem like kinda dicks. But there are also those where a person is just enjoying life in a public place and some Karen asshat wants to chase them.

    Here that would never happen, and nobody would give two fucks I think. Unless maybe if you film the police close up in a close encounter with handing a conflict on the street or something like that, you might annoy them as a possible interference. Otherwise, Norway is a very open, approachable, low-conflict place, and this is both written out as law and an unspoken societal rule.

  5. I’m so glad that obnoxious trait of “I want to be as antagonizing to other random people as possible to make some ambiguous point and get clicks on YouTube” is not nearly as prevalent here as it is in the US. The “first amendment auditors” are just doing it to piss people off who are going about their day. They ought to get a life.

  6. IANAL but I find the following from a quick google in which a lawyer responds:

    There is no general prohibition against filming in public places, and freedom of speech has a very strong protection in Norway (as witnessed by the police protecting the worst of the worst when they stage public protests).

    However, there is a limitation if the filming creates fear in, is a nuisance to, is seen as ruthless or inconsiderate, or disturbs the peace of someone being filmed. The threshold will be different for different subjects, so the threshold for being inconsiderate/ disturbing the peace would be lower for a lowly civil servant than for a government minister, for example, and the threshold would also reflect the context, e.g.,, a person involved in a controversy has a lower level of protection than someone who is just doing their job.

    This is covered by paragraph 266 of the penal code (Straffeloven).

    Publishing films involves a separate regulation (Åndsverksloven paragraph 104) which states that a person has the right to his/her own image, meaning you cannot generally publish pictures or films without their approval, unless:

    – It has general interest to the public (which would cover newsworthy stuff)

    – The image of the person is subordinate to the total content of the picture (e.g., you take a picture of a church, but there are people around)

    – The picture is of a crowd, a grouping of people etc. (e.g., pictures of a crowd or a protest march could fall under this exemption)

    And certain other exemptions.

    So in brief: Morons doing “auditing” which is not about auditing anything but just being a pain in the ass would be subject to paragraph 266 of the penal code; but filming in relation to a newsworthy event or event of interest to the public, with publishing of said film would generally be covered under freedom of speech and the carve-outs as mentioned.

    Sources:

    [https://www.ung.no/oss/7RyOst5zPAdwNDuwwFLz4k](https://www.ung.no/oss/7RyOst5zPAdwNDuwwFLz4k)

    [https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-05-20-28/KAPITTEL_2-9#%C2%A7266](https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-05-20-28/KAPITTEL_2-9#%C2%A7266)

    [https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2018-06-15-40/KAPITTEL_8#%C2%A7104](https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2018-06-15-40/KAPITTEL_8#%C2%A7104)

  7. You do not have the right to film or take photos of individuals in Norway like that, just because they are in a public space.

    This is something American tourists often oversteps when overseas.

    You are only allowed to do more panoramic style photos, where people can be present in the background, but you’re not allowed to zoom in on people and make them your main focus.

    Edit to add:

    Americans coming to Norway to do ‘street photography’ of interesting people is a typical overstep. Culturally you leave other people alone and do not overstep boundaries, and it’s also illegal to zoom in and take portrait photos of random strangers without permission beforehand.

  8. Regarding legality; this is from the point of view of an everyday citizen:
    Just like in the US, Norway doesn’t have a specific “Filming” or “Recording” law.
    As long as the person recording is allowed to be there (be it with permission on private property or rights on public property), and the act doesn’t cause alarm, annoyance, or somehow degrades someone (in the situation, not the recording itself) per straffeloven § 266.

  9. Love these too, especially Too apree he is usually only positive and even blurs people out. You are generally free to film here, but there are publishing laws so you couldn’t put it on YouTube. You can also film “please officers” if they do not deem you to interfere in their work. but you can not publish it anyway.

  10. I’m just glad I don’t live in the usa. Running around filming people at work screaming about the amendments while the country is falling apart

Leave a Reply