National Archives to Ban Photography
The Washington Post noted this morning that the National Archives will soon ban photography by visitors who have come to see the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents in their main exhibition hall. Currently, photography -- with no flash -- is permitted in the hall. After the change, professional photographers and media can still arrange with the Archives to take pictures; tourists will be allowed to bring their cameras (and cell phones, video cameras, etc) into the hall but will be warned by the guards if they use them, and escorted out of the building if they ignore the warning.
Some in the photography community have already expressed barely controlled outrage at the change. Here at DCist, we're big supporters of photographers' rights and find it crucial to protect them generally, especially in the nation's capital, where "security" fears can be overreaching. But we're having a little trouble getting too riled up about this change. The National Archives can certainly be faulted for notifying the public that the rule was open for comment only in the Federal Register, where few of those visitors were sure to see it. (Three people replied, all against the change; all three arguments are specifically refuted by the Archives in the final rule.) Not to mention the reason the documents are more threatened by flash photography is because of a change in their own preservation system. Up until 2003, the documents were kept under glass that had filters to block harmful light (UV and certain visible light), but the filters also caused the documents to appear greenish. To "improve the visitor experience," the filters were removed and placed on the light fixtures instead. The change allowed people to see the documents in true color, but also left them vulnerable to the mis-use of flash photography.
Photographer's rights fall under the First Amendment, and yes, we get the irony of limiting a right relating to the document that created it, but constitutional rights have never been absolute. This isn't quite like photographers' continual problems in the Metro, where photography is explicitly allowed, but Metro employees ignore or are ignorant of the rules. Nor is it like Union Station, where a sign went up banning photography that led to a congressional hearing led by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. In that case, there was confusion over public vs. private property and there was no justifiable reason (public safety or otherwise) for banning photography in the public area.
Here, the archivists are concerned for the preservation of the most important documents our country created, and anyone who's visited the Archives knows that much of the text is already barely visible. Erin McCann, a big supporter of photographers' rights, who provided testimony at Norton's congressional hearing, wrote a post for We Love DC today, arguing that this is an unfair limitation of the visitor experience, saying "Apparently, there's only one way to experience the National Archives, and those us who see life through a lens are not welcome to participate." Except there isn't one way, there are two: one is to use filtered glass that changes the "visitor experience" for everyone, and the other is to allow everyone to see the documents the way they really are but change the "visitor experience" only for the segment of people who want to take pictures. This case seems like a fairly reasonable, archival justification for a ban.
By the way, if you'd like a photo of the documents in the main hall, the Archives provides them free of charge. And if you're interested in the history around the preservation of the Declaration of Independence, particularly its fascinating move to the National Archives building in 1952, read here.