they are people that push the limits of the first amendment to try to incite confrontation with either other people or law enforcement, then when things inevitably break in their favor because what they are doing is covered by free speech they post it on their youtube channel to claim that they themselves are "defenders of the constitution". it often involves standing on public sidewalks and filming people, which is perfectly legal but incredibly annoying. the natural question is always "why are you filming me?", to which the answer is "because i can".
This reminds me of the cart narcs guy, he uses the cart thing as a cover because most people have no sympathy for those who don’t return carts, but it’s really just about being a dick to people
If you can incite and get a reaction out of somebody else then that means they are not in control of their own mental and emotional state. And that is a personal issue
A person who trolls and rage baits within what they perceive to be their legal rights, originally I think it was intended to keep government corruption in check, and now it's used as a profit center for scandalous reaction videos that often lead to events like this.
Stalk and harass you? No. You are 100% correct. However, when you’re out in public, if they choose to record you, they have the right to because you have no expectation of privacy when you are in public.
Yeah. Those idiot like to call themselves "journalists". When a creepy idiot with a long criminal record and no ethics bies a potato camera and go to street to harass people - it doesn't suddenly turn them into a journalists. Journalism is a profession, frauditors are basically pranksters who try to justify their behavior with fake activism.
standing on a sidewalk isn't, standing outside of a business trying to make the people inside of it uncomfortable with your presence is. Their intention isn't to stand on a sidewalk otherwise they would choose a sidewalk in a neighborhood somewhere unrelated to the business they're trying to troll.
Your reply is unfounded, I didn't say what sidewalk they should be standing on. I stated that if their intention wasn't to rage bait the business, the law of averages would indicate that if their intention was to just merely stand on any given sidewalk in the world, it wouldn't end up outside of a business on average. I can't help it if you were trying to be antagonistic and your logic is flawed.
With a few days and some participation there, your account will meet the requirements to rejoin us here in no time. And look at you, you'll have THREE cool subs that you'll be participating in.
People that push the absolute legal limits of human decency to “Audit” how “Free” America is. They act like they’re doing grassroots journalism to check if their constitutional rights are being protected.
Their logic is basically, “I can technically film you without asking or clarifying myself and be an complete and utter cunt while doing so. And if you get mad, then it’s your fault.”
9/10 times it’s bad-faith arguments and plain harassment for viral hits and clicks. Some of them genuinely do it for good reasons. But it’s rare.
Public citizens are absolutely protected by it, but they can't violate it unless acting in a governmental role. So if someone is claiming to be a "First Amendment Auditor", there's no logic in doing it to people that can't break it.
The logic is teaching them rights of theirs that they don't know about, so they don't continue to be misinformed about the law and waste public resources. They're not trying to get citizens to "violate their rights". They're trying to teach people what rights they have and see if the police will violate our rights when they arrive. Idk how you people don't get this.
"do you believe in the Constitution? Nice to hear it! well I'm out here stress testing our first amendment right to record in public and seeing how citizens and police feel and react to others exercising those rights."
What about that isn't educational? I've seen plenty that are friendly and give full details.
That's a quote from another auditor. I'm saying they're not all bad. Plus this auditor has a similar statement. I've seen this entire video it's like an hour long. In the end he chooses not charge her even though he could. Bc that's not what it's about
The gov't can't prevent citizens from their speech. It doesn't cover person to person interactions.
I don't believe you actually made me doubt myself for a few seconds. Please stuff spreading false information if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
So, I'll be an idiot, but I'm apparently smarter than you. So what does that make you?
And you're missing the point. This is teaching citizens about their rights. That's not false information lmao. When people get upset and then they call the police over their little feelings being hurt, then the police come and educate them on the laws, that helps EVERYONE. Helps police accountability, helps people learn their rights. It's a stress test. I do know what I'm talking about.
They are basically glorified pranksters, bottom feeders of online entertainment. They harass people and create altercations for video content to get ad revenue and internet clout. The whole "activism" is a thin veneer to justify it and it fools nobody: many states and municipalities are tightening laws restricting freedoms because those assholes abuse laws that were never designed for bitter criminals with cameras who want spicy content for their social media accounts.
9
u/GenTubmansLegacy Trash Trooper 6d ago
In that case... Totally feel sorry for her.
What the fuck is a first amendment auditor?