ADVERTISEMENT

1st Amendment Auditors

kaskaskiakid

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2019
3,553
2,050
113
I recently discovered this new fad on youtube - people with youtube channels who travel the country calling themselves independent news media exercising their constitutional rights with video cameras in public. They go inside local/state/fed gov buildings and start filming - police dept, post office, courthouses, jails, even state capitals, gov contractors. Basically, they are shit disturbers who make a mockery of exercising their rights under the guise of being news media, constitutional rights activists, and public service media. They are well versed on the laws, including varying state laws and can cite court rulings, and never break the law. They go into publicly accessible areas filming while being mysterious when questioned on what and why are the filming. It eventually leads to the cops being called and the showdown with police. I've watched a bunch of them. I find them entertaining, funny, informative, and thought provoking.

Most public employees don't know that it is legal to film in any public accessible area and the auditors will only give enough information on what they are doing to avoid trespassing, loitering, and interfering with business. People freak out when being filmed and the people filming give very little information.Sometimes employees and public bystanders will claim they don't give the filmers permission to film them - I learned we have no right to expectation of privacy in public. The auditors just say they are working on a news story and exercising their freedom of the press constitutional rights. Eventually the police are called and the confrontation is filmed.

That's when it gets interesting. These guys have won lawsuits and settlements, and have caused police officers and public employees to be sued and lose their jobs for being assaulted, illegally detained, and unlawfully arrested. These guys know the law better than some cops. For instance, the first thing cops will always do is ask for an ID. They refuse. Laws vary from state to state, but there are only 4 "ID on demand in public" states in the US (doesn't include while driving). Most states require that the cops have a reasonable suspicion that someone is in the process of committing a crime, about to commit a crime, or has committed a crime (MO law). They cite a supreme court ruling that a camera and filming in public is not a cause to be detained for suspicion of a crime. The cops will say they are responding to a call for suspicious activity and demand ID. The auditors will say they are independent news media working on a story, and under no obligation to give ID, press credentials, answer questions on what their story is about, and argue that they are not breaking any laws, and don't back down. They practically beg the cops to arrest them.

Most of these auditors bait the office employees and police into a confrontation, and have their lawyers on standby. One guy doing this is in his 50s and he does his thing being courteous and respectful until someone else amps it up. Some of them are just A holes, but they know the law. Not wanting to sound anti police, but they do expose how some cops immediately escalate to intimidation and bullying, and either don't know the law or just enforce their personal will on the public.

It's kind of funny when some of the tough guy cops find out they are wrong and get owned, and the filmers give them grief.

Again, I'm not anti cop, but I have a problem with a cop on a power trip. I've always been a Yes SIr No Sir guy with police, but I'm sure most of us have had a run in with a cop who acted like a tough guy when uncalled for. My most recent was with a game warden about 10 yrs ago who thought I was poaching and I was legal. What a dick!

Besides offices and buildings, they also film police traffic stops, wrecks, prisons, military facilities, and even random businesses, and they stay on public sidewalks and easements, or anywhere public accessible. There's cameras dang near everywhere we go now, but being filmed in public freaks most people out.

Just youtube search "First Amendment Audit" and there's thousands out there. Not sure how youtube works but I know these guys have their own channels that you can subscribe to and I think they make a little money based off their number of subscribers.

An example,,,

 
Last edited:
Good for these people. Protect and serve doesn’t mean I have to kiss your arse. I have read a few studies on why people become popo. A lot of them are hungry for power for a variety of reasons. And it ain’t “just a few bad apples”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kaskaskiakid
I did learn there is no right to privacy in public. For instance, if you're at the counter at the DMV to get license renewal and the people in line can hear your private information, it is up to the DMV and you to provide a privacy space so no one else can hear your information.

Did you know someone can stand on the public sidewalk or easement and film your house if they want to without your permission? Perfectly legal. Whatever you can see from public property is legal to film. It is up to you to build a fence or plant trees and scrubs on your private ground to block the view.
 
I agree Duck! I won't say "most" but there are many cops on power trips and act like tyrants above reproach because they have a gun and a badge. These are the cops that we need to get rid of and the ones that get people and cops killed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vallegrad2
I agree. I don't like being filmed like most people. But someone else's rights don't end with my feelings - good or bad.

Police hate being filmed because they can't get away with intimidation or bullying. I think the power goes to a lot of cop's head and they go gestapo mode even if someone respectfully challenges their judgment or authority, and forget about "protect and serve". I do think there are cops on power trips who abuse their authority on most police forces of any size.

We don't demand the highest standard for police. The cop who just shot the guy outside of his relative's garage had over 20 complaints against him over 20 years, all dismissed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vallegrad2
censorship - in very few cases, such as I'm glad the movie industry has ratings for movies, and television networks don't show graphic sex and violence during prime time hours.

fact checking - here's the problem in the media, both sides give their slant on the news and omit any facts or stories that don't fit their particular narrative. We seem to get the half truth everywhere, there is no penalty for doing it, and they feed their audience what they want to hear. I rarely watch cable news because of it.
 
censorship - in very few cases, such as I'm glad the movie industry has ratings for movies, and television networks don't show graphic sex and violence during prime time hours.

fact checking - here's the problem in the media, both sides give their slant on the news and omit any facts or stories that don't fit their particular narrative. We seem to get the half truth everywhere, there is no penalty for doing it, and they feed their audience what they want to hear. I rarely watch cable news because of it.
I'm with you on the first part. I guess I should have clarified..should youtube be able to take down videos or facebook, or etc. I think this is a huge problem going forward if generally speaking one political ideology gets to be judge and jury over what "stays up" and doesn't. do you see this as a violation of 1st amendment?
 
I'm with you on the first part. I guess I should have clarified..should youtube be able to take down videos or facebook, or etc. I think this is a huge problem going forward if generally speaking one political ideology gets to be judge and jury over what "stays up" and doesn't. do you see this as a violation of 1st amendment?
If Trump would have got his way with the FCC repeals to Section 230 packaged with the Covid relief, the end result would be very few being able to post anything on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, or even Rivals. Why should those companies let in content from users if they themselves could be sued over what any private persons opinion?
 
If Trump would have got his way with the FCC repeals to Section 230 packaged with the Covid relief, the end result would be very few being able to post anything on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, or even Rivals. Why should those companies let in content from users if they themselves could be sued over what any private persons opinion?
That would be a pretty tough conundrum. People can sue for whatever though...and again, doesn't the constitution allow for that freedom?

Hate speech is free speech, right?

Are we headed here: https://www.reuters.com/article/nor...ate-speech-against-trans-people-idUSKBN2852DL
 
If Trump would have got his way with the FCC repeals to Section 230 packaged with the Covid relief, the end result would be very few being able to post anything on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, or even Rivals. Why should those companies let in content from users if they themselves could be sued over what any private persons opinion?

Trump just wants this repealed so he can sue, what he does not realize is most of his stuff would be removed and the company would be shielded in doing so. Repealing section 230 would be horrible for everybody including Trump who uses social platforms a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: you_dont_know_me
That would be a pretty tough conundrum. People can sue for whatever though...and again, doesn't the constitution allow for that freedom?

Hate speech is free speech, right?

Are we headed here: https://www.reuters.com/article/nor...ate-speech-against-trans-people-idUSKBN2852DL
People can sue, but suing Twitter would be like shooting the messenger. The Norway article said a high bar to prosecute being incitement or language that dehumanizes them. That last part is subjective to opinion and could be hard to prove in court.
 
Yes, but many of these audits also show cops with giant size egos using intimidation and bullying when they are wrong about the law.

I agree, but you put on the uniform for years and let's see how you react when you are being recorded and they will not give you a good answer?
It is very easy to judge somebody on what you would or would not do when you have never had to do it or face the everyday dangers they have faced along with thier families. I have family in the blue and even thier kids have been threatened...not saying they are all prefect just saying it is not an easy job.
I am sure Teachers and coaches on here face that same thing, again all professions it is easy to armchair QB on saturday on what you would or wouldn't have done on friday night, and let's not forget about the parents that think all teachers and policies are unfair to little misses or mr.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MIZZOU71
Sure I get it. I couldn't imagine being a cop or teacher in the city. I have a buddy's wife/teacher who was followed home from school in STL. Scary!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bullitpdq68
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT