
From Scenes from the Atlanta Forest
We are writing this statement in response to two pieces recently published on the Scenes from Atlanta Forest counter-info site, one of which, “A Few More Words About Rats”, named us (subMedia) directly.
We would like to start by acknowledging the criticism made in this second article. We respect the intentions behind this criticism, and can appreciate where the author’s anger and frustration is coming from. We want them to know that we have heard what they, and others who have raised their criticisms with us, have said. The decision to publish footage from the action on Sunday March 5th was not one that we made lightly, and it has since been the source of considerable internal discussion, stress, and reflection within our crew.
We also want to be clear that while the video we published was framed as a celebration of the events of that day, we are fully aware that the action came at a heavy cost – a fact that was not adequately conveyed in our video. The charges that have been laid in relation to people’s alleged participation in, or proximity to the days’ events are incredibly serious, and will require months and years of active support and solidarity. Many of those arrested have been denied bail, including a number of trans women who are now being held in men’s prison facilities. Our enemies are sharing pictures taken from surveillance footage, doxxing arrestees, and calling for more repression. Additional arrests remain a very real possibility.
The cops and state prosecutors’ heavy-handed response to this action and their usage of draconian domestic terrorism charges is intended to terrorize participants, instill a sense of paranoia and division, and crush future resistance to the Cop City project. Many people are understandably on edge about how this investigation may proceed, and worried about friends and comrades who’ve been arrested. Members of subMedia are long-time anarchists who are part of the same networks and overlapping friend circles as many of the arrestees. We too have loved ones and acquaintances that are directly dealing with this wave of repression. The prospect of any of our videos being used to criminalize other anarchists is a nightmare scenario that we take very seriously.
To try and lessen the risk of this happening, we follow security protocols when filming, handling, editing, and publishing sensitive footage. These are not perfect, and the argument could be made that they were not sufficient in this case. We can’t say for certain that the video we published won’t be used by police investigators – although we have taken a number of precautions to protect the identities of those who were not properly masked, and/or who were filmed engaging in specific criminal activity. It’s always possible that the video could be used in court – though we are confident that it will not be of much use in securing convictions. We understand security culture and OpSec as an inherently imperfect and constantly-evolving sets of procedures, principles and standards, and we will be reviewing and updating our own practices moving forward.
We realize that these words rings hollow for those who believe it’s never okay to film illegal actions, period. We don’t expect to convince them otherwise. At the end of the day, we simply disagree with this hard line position, which is reflected in several arguments put forth in the article, starting with the following statement:
“Videos or photos are ALWAYS a problem in a demonstration that might involve riotous activity, and the spectacularization of revolt doesn’t actually contribute to the revolt. It is sufficient for people to find out about what happened through report-backs. There is no other way that doesn’t endanger anyone.”
The suggestion that images of revolt don’t contribute to spreading revolt is, quite frankly, absurd. If anything, it’s one of the primary ways that revolt spreads – provided that the proper conditions exist for reciprocal action. It is precisely because we live in such a spectacularized society that visual media is an essential tool for communicating anarchist ideas and tactics.
We also find the author’s rejection of any distinction based on who is behind the camera, and their total dismissal of the utility of media security practices to be puzzlingly dogmatic and completely divorced from reality.
Members of subMedia see ourselves as performing a limited and specific function within broader movements of resistance. We produce videos to help shine a light on front-line struggles, and to try and extend anarchist and anti colonial analysis to a broader audience – not just those who already get their news from report backs on counter-info sites,as important as those sites are. To reach the people who this author dismissively refers to as gawking spectators – as though that’s a fixed social position and not a common point of entry to radical politics.
We create these kinds of videos to motivate and encourage more people to actively engage in direct action, and to celebrate those who already do so. We believe in the importance of anarchists telling our stories from our own perspective. Audiovisual content has the power to build momentum, spread solidarity, normalize tactics, shape narratives, influence opinions, and deeply strengthen our movements. We recognize that filming militant direct action also carries risks, even when those filming do their best to minimize them. But that recognition must be balanced with an awareness that repression, and the fear it instills, is intended to shut us up, to make us retreat to the shadows and leave the State and corporate media as the sole arbiters of truth.
Reality is not black and white, and safety is not a zero sum game. There is always a tension between risk and reward that anarchists must navigate when participating in illegal actions. On this point, we also take issue with a statement the author makes while criticizing the zine In Defense of Smashing Cameras for being insufficiently uncompromising, and for the concessions its author makes for ‘trusted’ media:
“It isn’t possible for all participants in a riot to trust a certain individual, such guidelines would only be relevant for an affinity-based action where all involved can actually have input in the process.”
The person who filmed the action on March 5th was encouraged to do so by multiple organizers and action participants. While it’s true that they did not receive the universal consent of everyone who took part, the idea of needing to secure consensus in a riot before doing anything that another participant could find unacceptable strikes us as very similar to the logic of pacifists who claim that those who engage in criminal activity put everyone else in danger. We are sure the author of A Few More Words About Rats would join us in rejecting such logic in that hypothetical case. But the difference between that argument and the one they are making is only a matter of degrees – namely, which types of action one considers to be legitimate and worthy of risk.
We would also like to touch on one aspect of the anti-filming argument that has always struck us as particularly misguided and dangerous, even if it’s not made explicit: the idea that by restricting all on-the-ground filming and photography, you are creating a more secure space for militant actions to take place. Time and time again, we have seen comrades express surprise when they receive their court disclosure and find footage and photographs from police surveillance teams, Amazon RING cameras, dashcams, or CCTV cameras that they simply didn’t notice. In this case, the police have already released surveillance footage from a helicopter-based camera with thermal imaging capabilities, along with footage from a number of high definition CCTV cameras. We’re not mentioning this to dismiss the importance of adequate security protocols for those filming and handling footage of the action, or to deny that this footage can provide additional angles or other useful information to forensic investigators. What we are saying is that limiting this sort of filming is in no way a substitute for ensuring that those participating in an action are properly protected from the considerable surveillance capacities of the police and the so-called ‘good citizens’ who are more than willing to co-operate in their prosecution.
We want to end this statement by reiterating that we take these criticisms to heart while remaining committed to working alongside the Defend the Weelaunee Forest/Stop Cop City movement, and all movements fighting against the destruction of this planet and the expansion of the police state. Our commitment to these struggles is emboldened and reaffirmed every time we hear, read, watch, and witness uprisings happening across the globe. It is these social struggles led by those willing to put it all on the line that keep us wanting to do what we do. We hope that subMedia can continue to be a source of that same inspiration for others, particularly those who aren’t pre-initiated, and who don’t know which approved websites they’re supposed to be going to for their communiques. We would also sincerely encourage the author(s) of A Few More Words About Rats to reflect on who our real enemies are, and not be quite so cavalier about throwing around terms like ‘rat’ or ‘snitch’ over the internet in an effort to try and open up new fronts of conflict within our own ranks. If you want to get a message to us, there are other ways to do so.
Finally, we want to encourage everyone who cares about this struggle to provide material support for those who’ve been captured by the state, and are now facing the brunt of its repression. We’re sure that there will be more opportunities to offer support in the days, weeks and months ahead, but for now everyone should be making donations to the Atlanta Solidarity Fund.
Sincerely,
the subMedia collective
JUSTICE FOR TORTUGUITA.
NO HOLLYWOOD DYSTOPIA.
STOP COP CITY.
Submitted by subMedia over email
***
UPDATED ON MARCH 15 2023
Posted on March 14, 2023
We wrote our first statement with defensiveness towards snitch jacketing and the argument that visual media has no place at militant actions.
We took that defensiveness and projected it onto the critiques of the safety of our video, and that compounded our original mistakes.
We have retracted our original statement. We stand by many of the arguments we made, but making them at that time missed the bigger picture.
We’ve been swept up in emotions and now its time for us to stop writing statements and step back and reflect.
Our plan is to work on clear protocols for filming, transporting and publishing footage as well as steps for confirming consent along the way. We won’t do this alone.
If you’d like to add your perspective to this process please hit us up at crew@sub.media.
Thanks to all of you who have reached out with love and support over the last few days and especially to those who reached out for blunt conversations.
Comments
Could it be that submedia is
anon (not verified) Mon, 03/13/2023 - 18:41
Could it be that submedia is becoming more self-aware? Not like Skynet, obv. This is a sensitive and well-written and heartfelt response to a stupid series of incoherent insults.
yeah, i haven't been a media
lumpy (not verified) Wed, 03/15/2023 - 08:31
In reply to Could it be that submedia is by anon (not verified)
yeah, i haven't been a media person for a long time but imo, if you know anything about the subject from a technical perspective, you know the issue is the user, not the tool itself. generally always true.
i also don't begrudge active militants for attacking cameras on principle. that abundance of caution is very understandable when they're taking huge risks BUT i'm inclined to agree with this article.
That video was fire!
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/14/2023 - 14:17
That video was fire!
Add new comment