I watch various youtube channels and just wanna know what the folks here have to say about them. I have zero affiliation with anyone on such channels including “Auditing America” and “Amagansett Press” but just can’t stop looking at them.
Why don’t you tell us what you think?
In my opinion, they’re idiots.
These videos show some person walking up to police officers and obnoxiously exercising their “First Amendment rights” in an effort to test whether the police will respect said rights. It’s like a Sylvester and Hector skit from Looney Tunes, where Hector is tied to the post and Sylvester stands there taunting him.
I say idiots, and not just jerks. The most popular video on Auditing America’s channel is “Attacked: THEY WENT CRAZY REAL QUICK! ILLEGALLY DETAINED AND ASSAULTED!!! 1st amendment audit FAIL!”. In said video the cameraman gets arrested after lugging his recording equipment into the Patucket American Heritage Center, being a jerk to the staff at the probation lobby, then walking over camera in hand to the… pediatric health center? DHS office? The First Amendment right to videotape the inside of a government building is “subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions”. Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (2000).
~Max
My opinion is that people need to understand that they’re being recorded in most every public place nowadays and have zero expectation of privacy. Have you not noticed just how many cameras are on you at any given moment as you are out and about? Why do people freak out when they notice someone with one walking around? And furthermore if you really don’t wanna be recorded I’d suggest not confronting someone who’s exercising a Federally protected First Amendment Right and flaunting your ignorance.
Health records are an exception to the rule, so the pediatric center would be protected by federal privacy laws or state eavesdropping laws. Depending on what they do at the DHS office, it could be restricted too.
Second, walking around with a camera, and especially recording or taking pictures of security systems or infrequently visited places, is very suspicious. It could be indicative of scouting in advance of a criminal or even terrorist act. If you try that in an airport for example, expect an encounter with homeland security.
Third, talking back to a police officer when neither life nor limb is at stake is stupid. End of story.
~Max
I certainly hope you, Sir are not in any way, shape or form a public servant and or official. carry on.
I’m just in awe of some comments here. What in hell is going in someone’s mind when they post quotation marks around the phrase -First amendment Rights- like its some kind of horseshit they think is funny or offensive?
The bullshit Max is spewing is in fact the crux of the biscuit here. You’re ignorant. You’re paranoid and putting forth ideas that filming in public is criminal or even terroristic is nuttier than squirrel turds.
The only one making comments is me. Don’t mistake my opinion for the rest of the message board.
I used quotes because I don’t believe the first amendment fully covers all the actions these people claim it does. I even offered a cite showing that the government can impose reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions on the right to record or photograph within government buildings. I speculated that the pediatric clinic and DHS office were covered by privacy laws, which I think would count as reasonable restrictions.
I did not imply that filming in public is criminal or terroristic, only that it is suspicious. And even that was poorly written, I only meant to imply that filming within a government building is suspicious.
~Max
The phrase is in quotes not because the concept itself is in question. The phrase is in quotes because it’s highly debatable whether the behavior in the videos you’re promoting qualifies as an exercise of said rights, as opposed to just look-at-me clickbait assholery for the great mob of juvenile-minded viewers that typically consumes this nonsense.
You’re not helping or adding anything constructive here if you think the First Amendment is a concept.
Of course the first amendment is a concept. What else do you think it is? It’s intangible.
If the people in these videos were legitimate journalists running a story on how police officers handle a riot, or make an arrest, or how productive the staff are at parole offices, or how many people use DHS services, I would be behind them 100% (provided the bystanders and people visiting DHS for eg: domestic violence services are blurred out, which they are NOT).
But no, these videos are made for the express purpose of testing the police (probably for YouTube revanue too). They create a wholly unnecessary disturbance and often tie up real police resources. And worst of all, these particular dudes are jerks.
Man walks into probation lobby with camera, staff asks if they can help/why he’s recording…
Cameraman: “This is a public lobby, right?”
Probation officer: “It’s probation. Are you on probation?”
Cameraman: “Are you on probation?”
…
Officer: “Why are you taking pictures?”
Cameraman: “Because this is a public place and, you don’t tell me what to do.”
~Max
I think?
Cops are too patient and Taser probes should be bought in bulk.
FAAs ain’t gonna be happy until one of them gets killed, and three or four guys circling a cop trying to make an arrest is guaranteed to make that happen.
Define legitimate journalist.
By far the only reason cops are called is because public servants get all shaken up over nothing but a camera in their work space.
Any law enforcement officer worth his or her salt has by now had training and instruction this matter.
This is NOT a matter of just fucking with cops but weeding out and making examples of the willfully obtuse when they pop up trying to be johnny badass.
“Legitimate journalist” would be flavor text, the sentence works just as well without those two words because I described legitimate journalism in the same sentence.
This is not, in and of itself, legitimate journalism. IMHO
~Max
I don’t know if any have been killed, but unfortunately at least one has been shot. She claimed she wasn’t doing an audit at the time, though she did identify as a First Amendment auditor.
~Max
Off on a tangent… What is FAAs and who on God’s grey Earth is Furry Potato?
I gathered that it stands for “First Amendment Audit”. ‘Furry Potato’ is a First Amendment Audit YouTube personality who was shot in the leg in February of 2019.
~Max
So you can see how far down this rabbit hole I am. not very. I honesty though more folks here would just be supportive of knowing and flexing their Constitutional rights. I’ll stick with legitimate journalism like Dr. Phil from here on out.
I think the idea of Joe Citizen going out in he world to “audit” his first amendment rights is pretty fucking stupid. I’ve seen youtube videos where people drive by cops, flipping them off, in the hopes of being pulled over so they can argue about free speech and the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Only in America, I suppose. First world problems and all of that.