STEP 4 WEIGH CONFLICTING INTERESTS When advocates, journalists, and crisis responders document a human rights or humanitarian issue, it is generally out of concern for the “public interest”—the belief that it is in the public’s interest to expose a crime or serious misdemeanor, protect public health and safety, and contribute to an informed and engaged citizenry. Video can be a powerful tool to expose issues of public interest and motivate change. However, there is a constant tension between this motivation to expose abuse and considerations of consent, security, and dignity. For instance, one may be shocked to see a video of prison torture and tempted to broadcast it on the news before considering the impact of that video on the victims of abuse. (See the example from Malaysia in the “Perpetrator Videos” section on page 9.) • Public interest vs. individual risk. Though exposing injustice has great potential for public good, there may be security risks involved for individuals who choose to speak out on-camera. Subjects should understand those risks and have consented to take them on, due to their belief in the potential benefit of sharing their story. • Public interest vs. rights of the accused. This is often at issue in videos that expose the identities of perpetrators of abuse. Some human rights organizations blur the faces of perpetrators to protect their safety and ensure their right to a fair trial, but others choose to expose their identities to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions and put pressure on society to bring them to justice. • Public interest vs. individual dignity. While it may violate an individual’s dignity to expose his or her abuse, it could also result in greater advocacy for a victim when that individual is known rather than nameless. For instance, when a video emerged documenting police torture of detainees in Fiji, the mother of one of the victims was able to identify her son and advocate for justice.3 The responsibility of the curator is to use his or her professional judgment to weigh the intended social good of exposing human rights abuse with the potential risks involved in sharing eyewitness videos, especially ones in which the individuals filmed may not have given their informed consent to the recording. Strive for a balance that minimizes the likelihood that the video will cause unanticipated harm, especially for those who remain in vulnerable situations after the video is shown or distributed. See below for ways to expose abuse while minimizing risk. CREATE STANDARDS Create standards within your organization to guide how you handle footage, and make sure your team clearly understands them before they are put to the test. Are there situations in which you would share videos without receiving the informed consent of the individuals filmed? Will you always blur faces of victims of abuse in eyewitness videos? Will you blur faces of perpetrators? When will you choose not to broadcast, embed, or link to eyewitness footage? Create your own checklist of questions to be asked to determine whether and how to distribute footage, or use the checklist provided at the end of this guide. 182 VIDEO AS EVIDENCE: ETHICAL GUIDELINES V 1.2 SHARING Consider the principles outlined above to weigh what are often conflicting human rights values. Here are a few examples illustrating how those values can clash: