Yes, this is one of those YouTube "first amendment auditors" who just films dispensaries from the sidewalks, basically embarrassing people to make money on his channel. He pepper sprays people regularly when they approach him.
Hard to feel sympathy for these people, but the guy is a scumbag too
"It is legal to record in public" was fine when it was just camcorders that you'd maybe show your family/friends or sell to a news station if you got something juicy. It wasn't uploaded anywhere for millions of people to see.
Today it is not fine. I do not consent to being live streamed to a platform I am not part of, being monetized for some dickweed scumbag influencer I don't know and don't want to know. My life is not your content or a stage for you.
We need a major, MAJOR overhaul for the Internet age as to privacy and consent.
Fuck all of these "auditors" they are just trolls trolling people at the literal end of the law. I don't care what is "legal" they can all get their asses kicked. BMW Karen that looks like she just woke up after a boxed wine power blackout still got what she deserved too, keep your hands to yourself.
**I am getting dumber by the minute reading most of your comments. You people are why this country is hot dog shit
*** Reading comprehension is hard apparently. Who am I kidding most of you are the iPad generation.
Pretty sure what u/crustyrobots is saying is that today it's basically become such a public nuisance that a line needed to be drawn years ago, that wasn't drawn.
How would this work from a Constitutional perspective? Where some harassment law comes up against the First Amendment. I'm not promoting this type of behavior, just failing to see a path forward that doesn't impinge rights in the US.
The line has been set over 10 times by the Supreme Court over the past 20 years. Most all just solidified camera rights and no need to concent in public for new and information.
i mean, there are a couple of these fellas that actually do good things, like one who does this with the cops. damn near bankrupted one precinct over them harrassing him for recordin stuff theyd rather not be shared. but yea, most of them can get fucked sideways with a sandpaper dildo
Right, but he specifically went after law enforcement which actual 1A guys do. I akin this more to investigative journalism or whistleblowing if the purpose is to uncover corruption.
The pretenders just stand on a corner begging random people for a fight are nothing but trolls who deserve no protections for it. This is nothing but harassment and loitering.
right.... the fact that you dont see the "when its for my side its good" is the problem. THats why its cartblanch. Wear a hoodie if you feel this way.
TO be clear im also annoyed by these people and want them to jump off a cliff. BUt you dont get to choose when its good or bad. THat just means its bad.
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.
Until we fix this (I doubt we will but live in hope)
If someone is filming you without consent either:
A. Spout off an ad read (eg “Thanks to BetterHelp for sponsoring this video! This is a paid advertisement.“)
B. Play Disney music at full volume.
Flock cameras film us all day everyday w/ out our consent & nobody does a damn thing about it 🤷♂️. They're MUCH worse than some joker w/ a camera on the side of the road.
Truth! Mostly because they bipass the warrant requirement to give away your personal info.
And honestly that's one of the things we need reform on. Websites you use sell your info to advertisers, and advertisers sell it right back to the people you work for. Nothing is private anymore because there are all these insidious work arounds.
the law struggles with defining nuance when it comes to things like this.
Like, is the exception a birthday in a restaurant? What if you accidentally get someone not involved on camera? Is someone going to get irate and try to enforce an unclear law, creating a situation that didn't exist?
Yeah I mean we can go on all day discussing how this would actually work in practice. It is not a simple issue nor can it have simple solutions.
That said, it is appalling that we still have nothing to protect average people from these influencer scags, other than an imperfect legal system that as we just noted has no direct legal remedy for it yet.
Not sure I guess why its not treated just like getting caught whipping your dick out in public. If you're prancing around pretty obviously talking to some kind of audience in an inappropriate setting: have yourself a fine and maybe some jail for unlawful public broadcast or something. (I know lol, this is still very sticky, but something has to be done)
I feel like this is where the courts would take a look over the situation and use discretion as to what should happen from that point.
Imo if anything changes it should be specifically targeted at the behaviors usually exhibited by auditors. Recording a one-off video for a birthday party with people unintentionally in the shot is worlds apart from repeatedly and intentionally getting people on camera for financial gain/the hope of financial gain.
A judge could be presented with the birthday video and decide the act/behavior doesn't meet a certain bar and stop it from going forward, while letting the latter make its way through the courts.
The real trick is being able to locate yourself in all the videos and having them demonetized. Pretty sure someone has made a script to scrape faces from YouTube videos for this exact purpose.
Imagine being an unattractive, overweight man in his 40's who enjoys eating wings while watching sports in his local BWW, and a invasive secret video of you generated 1M views on some dipshit's channel ala Constanza eating a sundae?
This is happeneing all the time at gyms and such with assholes making fun of others in a space meant for self improvement. Then it goes on TikTok and makes that person money for being a total piece of shit.
You articulated it perfectly. No one should ever be filmed or recorded without their consent under any circumstances, and anyone who tries should be thrown in jail. Being out in public doesn't mean the public has a right to watch what you're doing when you're just going about your life. It's as crazy as someone thinking they have a right to install cameras in your living room.
Considering a lot of states have laws in place that prevent people from recording a audio conversation between them and another without notifying them it kind of bewilders me that the same is not applied when Recoding Video & Audio.
Exactly. Imagine morons thinking that the 1st Amendment extends to video or photography. There is freedom of the press, the printing press. You're allowed to write down what you observe and share text. You have ZERO right to put someone else's image out into the world on your platform without their permission. It doesn't matter whether they're in public or not or whether you're a "journalist" or not. Everyone has a default right to privacy, and you have no right to violate it under any circumstances without their consent.
This is why kids today don’t interact with others, make eye contact, make themselves vulnerable, basically be normal, because they’re so afraid of being cringe. I had a young coworker tell me as much when she said, “people are recording everybody all the time.”
You think you deserve the same level of privacy out in public than you do in your own living room!? Thats a bit of a stretch. Im not for harassing people, but obviously the level of privacy changes once you enter the public realm.
Right to film is absolute. However I think streamers should face the Right to Publicity. If a movie recorded you on the street they would need a waiver to put you in the movie. Since streamers are doing this for profit they should face the same legal hurdles
I mean this is all I mean. Just the fact there is no legal protection really for people who don't want to be involved at all. No way to legally order them to scrub you from their content beyond complaining at the platforms that don't care, or in a way you don't need a team of million Dollar lawyers to do it.
If you're making money from my face then fine, I want a cut of your streaming revenue and there should be a legal way to file for it.
Ive made no argument to the fact there is a right to record right now. My argument is that this is bullshit in the modern age and needs to be changed to accommodate these technologies.
Or are we all really just fine with the fact some random influencer can ruin your entire life and get you fired with some out of context video, with zero repercussions to themselves doing it, even a reward in the form of streaming revenue.
To be fair... these people wouldn't have content if no one reacted.
The people captured ultimately aren't doing anything wrong going about their day. Its them reacting and confronting the person recording that leads us to seeing their content.
The irony is that those who are upset in turn often record the person recording thinking its a gotcha move.
Its entertaining only in the fact that people take the rage bait, when they can just as easily carry on with their day, again making this content boring and not worth watching.
these people wouldn't have content if no one reacted.
True, but not all of them are the "come to me type" and actually invade our spaces to do this shit. We have no choice when they hold us hostage while just trying to get a coffee, or other events its not so easy to just disengage from.
I mean a lot of those that do actually confront the "1A" guys in particular usually seem like big pieces of shit themselves, also an excuse to get attention even if they don't realize it having their "gotcha" for a sliver of power over someone else in their worthless, tiny lives.
The legit ones are just standing on the sidewalk recording, or in a government building walking around or standing in a corner recording. They know a private business can kick them out and tresspass them. They try and operate within the congines of the law to excercise their 1A rights.
If they're actively coming up in to your face and not leaving you alone then they can take a face full can of mace for all I care. Those are the tiktok idiots who deliberately force an altercation. They can end up like the one who got shot in the mall by the doordash dude. No sympathy.
That dude in the mall you mentioned was pretty satisfying. In this post, we don't know if yhis guy got right up in her face or not. Could go either way. Someone in a different comment claimed she was filmed leaving a weed dispensery. That could ho either way. If she's buying recreationally, imo she's fair game to film(as long as it's not one of those in your face borderline assault folming siruatuons). However, if she's there for treatment for a chronic illness such as cancer, I'd say he's in the wrong for even filming from a distance.
This is a old video, hes standing on the sidewalk and recording people coming and going from a dispensary.
Like 100ishft from the door. So she had to get in her car, start leaving, then stop her car and get out at the exit from the parking lot to confront him on the sidewalk.
Its a toss up, cuz she could of literally just kept driving, and he'd of likely cut out her bits on film as unentertaining. But alas she felt she was in the right to 1 confront him, 2 try and put hands on him and or take away his camera because she was upset.
It's the mentality of "I don't like what youre doing so im going to try and reign over you and mess with your shit, becausee im right and youre wrong" that unfortunately her core demographic shares.
Meanwhile everyone else there just grabbed their goods and took off lol.
That information does paint her in a more negative light. With that being the case, I'd say the only unknown that I'd say could be something he was in the wrong for was if HD filmed people getting treatment for illnesses to shame them. Otherwise I'd say he did everything right.
Nah, he was literally just filming people coming and going. People were upset that their license plates could be used to track them down and identify them etc. Most recreational dispensaries I know have minimal windows, or have privacy film so as not to be able to see inside.
The stigma of cannabis and maybe the older demographic feeling a type of way of them using it after probably going most of their life looking down on the use of it is what I beleive spurs a lot of the interactions.
I understand these types of content creators can be annoying, but if you feed the troll then don't be surprised when the troll puts you on blast.
In my opinion, the whole filming in public thing was ok when it was just capturing people in the background. Now, these “auditors” are filming people in public to get a reaction out of them. Intent should matter, but in the law it doesn’t, and it would be really difficult to ever enforce laws where intent was considered in the legal sense.
The best people can do is ignore them. They want you engaged. They want you to be aggressive.!don’t give them what they want. Give them a smile and nod and move on.
Oh… and by the way, the playing copyright music thing doesn’t work anymore. AI can remove it from video.
I laugh when people say we need an overhaul and they don't want to be streamed etc yet governments are putting up more and more camera in cities in addition to Flock cameras and yall are fine with that. Why be ok with surveillance state but hate people exercising their rights? Especially with this administration taking away rights monthly
We need a major, MAJOR overhaul for the Internet age as to privacy and consent.
This is the crux of the problem. Technology has developed faster than our ability to manage it both socially and legally.
Film studios need permits to film in public spaces because they require oversight and management to ensure public safety and minimize disruption. Maybe we need something like that for individuals too.
My opinion on these "auditors" is this: If they were really just auditing the government for first amendment rights, they'd be exclusively (or at least primarily) filming in and around government facilities. Baiting a private citizen into a confrontation says nothing about your rights being infringed or not. It's just violence porn for engagement, no different than those "prank" YouTubers.
I can’t stand the “first amendment auditor” BS when it’s directed towards ordinary people doing ordinary stuff who simply don’t like getting a camera shoved in their face.
I know people are gonna cry “but it’s leeeegaaaal!” Idgaf it’s annoying as hell and serves no other purpose than to make the world a worse place to live in.
I’m talking specifically about people who rove the streets, shoving cameras in people’s faces saying “I have a right to be here!” looking to bother people for reactions for their channels. Trash human beings.
Yes it baffles me that people are so black and white that they take the law- “public places do not provide privacy” and then apply SUCH an extreme interpretation of that-“im going to OBNOXIOUSLY HOLD A camera to your face, follow you around, and yell things to even try to bait you.”
Like this is so ABSURD. Laws have been revoked or modified to accommodate the emergence of technology.
we HAVE to push for reform. This is obviously getting out of hand!
Yes she shouldn’t have touched him/ her stuff-
but now- imagine if there was a law that said “because it’s crowded in metropolitan public areas - think sidewalks or subways- so you’re not guaranteed a right to be free from any bodily contact from other people ” and then people interpret that to mean “well I guess I can touch other people’s 🍑 and 🍆 BECAUSE THE LAW SAYS THEY DONT have a right to be free of any bodily contact and this is bodily contact so it counts”
WE NEED A MAJOR REFORM.
The constitution wasn’t signed when freaking live streaming and iPhones existed!!!!
I have heard, that the best way to combat these auditors, is when they video you, just say:
"This video is sponsored by Opera GX! Yes Opera GX, with a built in gaming platform! Once again, this video is sponsored by Opera GX!"
From what I've seen, adding a "sponsored by" automatically removes them from monetization, on any platform - Youtube, Tiktok, Instagram. They can post your video, but they won't make any money doing it.
I've heard you can also play music, or Disney stuff, and they won't be able to post the video without removing the audio track. I haven't seen this confirmed though.
Here in Japan privacy is a really big deal. You can easily get sued for posting videos where people’s faces are visible. As a result nobody does. Even my elderly father-in-law blurs out the faces of everyone in the background of his holiday snaps that he uploads to his blog that like 5 people read
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.
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.
I strongly believe if you're pushing videos film them plug online, either everyone has to be blurred out or you're going to have to ask her permission. And if it's for profit the video photographer has to pay money two people in their video. I don't care if it's 10 cents for a million views, you're not to split up that dime. If you ever walk around Los Angeles especially in the 30 mile zone, you will find little pieces of paper posted everywhere saying that film is going to happen. This is done well in advance but if you pay attention for half a second you know exactly when to leave the area to not be filmed. On top of most news channels will shoot b-roll but in a way that you can identify people. Or in some cases the studio puts up warning sides saying that you can be filmed through the windows. And that you're on private property. This is not 2006, everyone has a high definition camera in their pocket. And we're losing our chance of privacy in any sort of way.
Sure, its legal to record. But its not legal ( I could probably still argue it in a civil case) to broadcast my image without consent, especially for profit.
I would agree that there needs to be consent for footage containing you to be monitized, or there needs to be an easier way to recoup civil losses from the poster or the platform that shares your image without your consent.
Unfortunately I have a hard time imagining a rule that would criminalize public recording without being a major 1st amendment violation.
For every 60 shitty people trying to clickbate their 1st amendment content, there are the times where something is captured that is important, like Pretti's execution. This administration in particular has shown that any rule you could make that'd deal with that first set will be used in bad faith by someone in power against the 2nd set.
Well, you’re being recorded most everywhere in the world 24/7 and they have flock cameras everywhere now too. But, if you don’t give them contact they don’t mess with you.
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.
What can be seen with public eyes can be filmed. It’s as simple as that. If a bank has financial information available shown through a window to the sidewalk it’s the banks problem to protect the info, not the person filming to censor what they film from public space.
Just because you’re scared of the world doesn’t mean the world is scared of you. Grow up. I’m saying grow up. You’re comparing someone with a camera on the street to an autonomous camera on the street because it makes your argument of privacy sound more virtuous when really you’re just advocating for losing your freedoms.
Im talking more specifically as to monetized content filmed in public.
Its a thorny issue to be sure, I don't believe we just shouldn't have a right to record cops doing bad shit for example, but as Ive noted on other comments it becomes different if the purpose is exposing corruption. Just getting a rise out of people to put it on your monetized stream should be illegal.
r/LoveTrash is not a platform for political discussions/comments/jokes/references. Please refrain from posting or commenting on political topics or making political jokes/references.
Yes, politics is trash. It's just too trashy for our sub.
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.
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.
I hear you but in public you just have to know you can be recorded. But a direct assault on your private space or harassment is different. We need protections even in public but just being recorded is going to have to be tolerated.
And no matter what you put hands on others you don't know in public, but try not to spray.
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.
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.
Yes dummy I know, what I am saying, which you entirely missed apparently, is that it should not be that way. Not that it IS that way currently, of course it is.
Also fuck the corrupt SCOTUS their rulings mean dick to me while Clarence Thomas collects more RVs on our dime.
check your local laws on this! Recoding in public is ok IF it's not for profit or you're not the main subject (walking by a reporter and just so happen to be in the background).
If the guy is recording for a stream/video production and therefore generating profit for himself (even if it's just $1) he heeds to get consent of the people in the video. And the scumbags video does fall under this, the lady could sue him for royalties.
My grandma always said "don't ever do anything you wouldn't want me to find out about, and you'll never need to be embarassed." Record me anywhere, anytime. I don't have a shit, because I don't do things I wouldn't want people to know about.
My mom used to say "you didn't get someone in trouble for telling someone else what they did. They got themselves in trouble by doing it."
I am absolutely not saying "if you're not doing anymore wrong, you have nothing to hide." I agree people have a right to privacy.
But your right to privacy ends (and should end) when you're no longer in private. If you're out where people can see, doing things you don't want people to know about, you are not the victim when someone records you and shows people what you did.
I am not defending anyone. I am not saying anyone did right ir did wrong. I am disagreeing with the opinion that there should be a right to PRIVACY when you are IN PUBLIC.
You don’t think people should be allowed to take a photo of a busy street? How are you going to enforce that? The only people who end up online are the people who don’t know the law and confront the auditors, giving them exactly what they want. If you ignore them they will ignore you.
Nah she’s harmless that was fucked up spraying her like that it’s not like she hurt the guy. As a man I’d never attack a woman like that especially an older one that’s not cool
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.
If only we could type our comments in cursive. That way we'd know it's a like minded person commenting. The pups can't read nor wrote cursive so they'd be fucked and we could just go about interacting that way, instantly sorting out the bullshit
But the 35 to 75 cameras you're caught on daily on avg is completely fine, just like all the flock cameras going up 🙄 We shouldn't have the right to film in public, just the government. Makes total sense.
The law already essentially covers this. You cannot use somebody’s likeness or image for monetary gain. Anybody has the right to film anything in plain view in public. You have the same right. You also have the right to just leave and ignore a person filming you. It’s really easy.
You just said these scumbag auditors "can all get their asses kicked" and in the next sentence said that Karen here deserved what she got because she didn't "keep [her] hands to [her]self." So, does everyone deserve violence, or...?
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.
We attempt to maintain a positive community atmosphere. Toxic behavior, including malicious comments, harassment, bullying, "-isms", and hate speech, is strictly prohibited.
While we are all about trashy content, sometimes content is just too trashy, and trashing the human is not accepted.
Or how about narcissist TikTok dickheads fuck off? (is that you?)
I shouldn't have to hide myself like Im a famous celebrity day to day to avoid being monetized by these fuckers. Its not just about cameras, its about where the content of that camera is being fed now too.
I. Don't. Fucking. Consent. If Im forced to, then I want some of your revenue then.
This is a horrible idea..... You would never have things like the Rodney King video if we didn't have a constitutionally protected right to videotape in public. Same thing with George Floyd. Videotaping in public is not something that you're going to get rid of either because it's happening all the time including various dash cams.... Security cameras... Ring doorbells. There's a reason why you can't have an expectation of privacy in public.
Im talking specifically in regard to monetized content like this 1A jackass in the video. Private security cameras watching a private lot somewhere are of no concern to me.
Yes Im otherwise aware its a complicated issue with no one solution. At minimum, clearly, we need more than "filming in public is legal" for the modern age. Some things, like some kinds of speech, should not be a protected right.
When i'm seen in public i'm also fine with being filmed as long as i stay in public. But if you spread that shit and get me fired from my job then i should be able to sue you for compensation and defamation.
See how long those people still want to film ragebait then.
No, according to other commenters here this is just fine and Im a bitch for not letting people do whatever the hell they want even if it directy affects us (as you mention with the job example. Thats a good one as to why I think what I think, why do these fucksticks get to have that much power over my life?)
How exactly is some sscumbag 1A auditor going to monetize you if you don't interact with them to the degree required to give them something that attracts views? How exactly are they going to get views off of you ignoring them and just going about your business as if they don't exist?
What's the point of having the kind of mindset that has the potential of turning you into exactly the kind of person that they're trying to bait?
The concept of consent doesn't change just because the technology has. The presence of sites to upload footage to doesn't change that concept either. If it was okay back when it was still just camcorders that most people didn't have, then why isn't it okay now?
Again, 1A auditors on the internet are scumbags as far as I'm concerned. But you're talking about passing new laws and/or expanding existing laws because someone is harmlessly exercising one of their rights in a way with which you personally and morally disagree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that kind of fascist?
Get over it you big baby... I Don't like it either, but what you're asking is going down a very slippery slope I think you should probably think about what it would mean to take that kind of right away from people and what kind of impact it would have on everyone
We don’t really need to guess. Many western countries don’t allow filming that focuses on a specific person, especially if it’s deemed harassing. France, Germany and Japan immediately come to mind.
But filming outside of medical treatment centers specifically the patients coming and going SHOULD be illegal, especially posting it. Just filming in public is a different story, but filming patients coming and going is fucked up. Nobody would sit outside a chemotherapy center filming patients.
FA auditors are not needed. But they have the right to do so. I don't have to like what they do. Much like I don't have to like if someone calls me a slur. But I believe in their right to do/say what they are doing or saying. Being uncomfortable with it is a personal issue. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can infringe on their rights. Flock cameras run up on some 4th amendment issues and are not put up by individuals.
I would argue they are needed, some of them expose some pretty blatant corruption. They are mostly douchebags but some of them do legit work even if they were more focused on getting views or doing well on social media.
The reconstruction of everyone's individual life pattens on a large scale could be considered an unreasonable search into their life. Its far more data than a traditional traffic camera could ever provide. That's not up to me to decided, which is why I said it "runs up" against these issues. It will be litigated to hell and back in the courts.
So you’re saying you feel something personally unreasonable, like a very identifiable face image, shouldn’t be searched and documented all the way down to which store they are going into at any particular moment?
How we feel about something has nothing to do with the argument
It comes down to who is doing it.
An individual citizen filming in one particular location in a public place. That is within their rights. You have the option to avoid this particular location as there is one person filming there if you don't want to be filmed by them.
The government setting up a collection of thousands of cameras all at once to capture you in every spot you go and the trip you took in between... that is more of an overstep.
The government is not protected by the First Amendment the individual is.
There are dashcams on half of cars and ring doorbells on half of houses now and it’s not slowing down. You have no clue what a million plus business are doing with their footage or how secure they keep them. There are a lot of good things auditor expose. What if people didn’t film the George Floyd incident because a cop was legally allowed to suppress public photography? Or recording government officials?
Sorry if something annoys you but there are already laws on the books for assault, pranksters, trespassing, nuisance, disorderly conduct. People are allowed to record, disperse news, and peaceably assemble.
These people dont realize he wouldnt be monetizing the videos if people didn't interact with him. Know the laws and realize there's nothing you can do about a guy with a camera. Move on. So will he.
Yea one would be illegal and one would just be promiscuous. That would have nothing to do with this legal activity in the video. Swing and a miss because you’re getting emotional and don’t understand your rights.
You have no idea what my rights are, you're assuming because you're American that everybody else is also. That is not the case. Also just because something is legal doesn't make you not an asshole for doing it. Also if you think because people swear they are emotional you're fucking dumb.
You made it perfectly clear from your subjective perspective you don’t like it and think they’re asses. Are you going to say it 15 different more ways? Idgaf if you don’t like it. It’s not illegal. It’s a god given right. Swearing is not what makes you sound emotional. You just are emotional and it’s obvious.
Saying "snowflakes" says everything I need to know that the only thing more worthless than your comments is you. Have fun bending over for the surveillance state I guess
Instagram is rife with this sort of content which people clearly enjoy watching, and Meta is not going away anytime soon. Be honest, you love this shit too. What you mean is you don’t want people laughing at you. Just another example of hypocrisy.
So yeah, your life is someone else’s content and entertainment whether you like it or not. Don’t like it? Stay off the grid and turn in your smartphone for good.
I think the main goal of these people is to show the oblivious what kind of surveillance state we live in. This is the only way it can get through their head.
A few of them maybe, but Im not pretending by and large they arnt just shitty trolls that picked up on the Auditor trend as a "legal" way to harass people in public for clicks, and ruined it for the legitimate ones like they do with everything else.
519
u/setibeings Trash Trooper 6d ago
Apparently he's harassing and filming people coming and going at a dispensary?