The first mistake comes off to me as a lack of respect for the speaker's voice. These activists added things to what the speaker had said. Perhaps because they knew the details and thought it would make a more compelling story, or in one case the interpreter tried to express that he was speaking in his own voice as he added a campaign ask, but he didn't know third person rule. Now really, it's not usually appropriate for the interpreter to add anything, even in this way, but if he HAD to, he could have said "the interpreter would like to add that ... (eg. this information is available in English at the website x)". If the interpreter needs to ask for a repetition this should also be requested in third person (eg, the interpreter requests a repetition).
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMhIUQRDnr8VQ879iH6glcUUGjpGREyBOwtHztZ2oFGfroV8qtf-dKgmtLuBLNEydcqFlsjnbKzTF_tFkK8GDNe09RHNs2uvz-7Yi9wKsb6G_lNKhy_RXJotZYITt8ZhTkYEDwr9oXkFw/s1600/almada.jpg)
Please, if you ever hear folks making these mistakes in social justice settings, take a minute to remind them that the best way to respect the speaker and amplify their voice is to not add to, omit from, or otherwise change the message of the speaker, and to use the first person unless they are referring to themselves, in which case to use "the interpreter".
(photo is of me interpreting on stage at the vigil for Martin Almada - thanks to my mom for making us fantastic red interpreter vests that made us easy to identify!)