1st Amendment "Audits".

[tabzer]

This guy. I think what he is doing is kind of fascinating. It's painful to watch at times, but the more I watch, the more interesting it becomes.

What is your opinion about the concept of "1st ammendment audits" and why they are helpful or harmful?

Is it okay for "big brother" to be able to do everything that this guy is doing, but when people see a face, only then do they feel validated in confronting the discomfort?

 

[Scarlet]

The idea behind this kind of thing isn't terrible, but way too often these people have a misunderstanding of the law and are steadfast by that misunderstanding, causing issues for other people. I used to work in the Civil Service (in the UK) as an example, and we had somebody like this coming into our building saying it was public property because it was civil service, and that he had a right to do what he wanted. Stupid.

If you like this kind of content but want a bit of commentary as to who was in the right, Audit the Audit is a fun channel. I don't have too much of an issue with people exercising their rights, but I do feel like people need to be better informed as to exactly what their rights are (both the police side and the camera-holder side). You also do find a lot of these "auditors" are just assholes looking to provoke people because they're technically not doing anything illegal. It's just a weird rabbit hole.

 

[Xzi]

Wow thanks, I hate it. Only Tim Robinson could pull off the cringe humor on display here. When this guy does it he's just plain annoying.

 

[tabzer]

Wow thanks, I hate it. Only Tim Robinson could pull off the cringe humor on display here. When this guy does it he's just plain annoying.

It is cringe humor, but I don't think what it reveals about America and the consensus of the 1st amendment is, is more interesting.

Like I said in my previous post. Police wear body cams and film everyone, but when this guy does so openly, he's the weirdo with uncertain intentions.

 

[Xzi]

Like I said in my previous post. Police where body cams and film everyone, but when this guy does so openly, he's the weirdo with uncertain intentions.

Police are a unique case though, you have the right to film them yourself, and their own body cam footage is often used against them in lawsuits or criminal charges. It's when police turn body cams off that you can pretty much guarantee they're up to no good.

There are any number of organizations which provide support in ensuring constitutional rights are upheld. A cringe Youtuber is only doing what he's doing for his share of the ad revenue.

 

[tabzer]

Police are a unique case though, you have the right to film them yourself, and their own body cam footage is often used against them in lawsuits or criminal charges. It's when police turn body cams off that you can pretty much guarantee they're up to no good.

What's that line of logic? It seems that you are suggesting that Jar Jar Binks had no right to video record in public spaces. Witnesses and known video footage related to legal cases can be subpoenaed of practically anyone, not just police.

 

[Xzi]

What's that line of logic? It seems that you are suggesting that Jar Jar Binks had no right to video record in public spaces.

The recording isn't the issue here, it's the fact that everybody can tell he's not really on a video call, and also that he's playing dumb for the sole purpose of wasting their time. If he actually gave a shit about our first amendment rights, he'd use his channel to highlight instances where they were violated and offer support to the people involved. Instead of, you know, trying to self-victimize for clout.

 

[tabzer]

I saw a lot of entitled Americans in those videos, and it seems like you're in support of them. I didn't interpret him as being self-victimizing. He's having fun. He has many friendly interactions, but the people who are getting upset by him seem okay with revealing how ugly they are on film, up until the point that the police tell them that what he's doing is legal (lol). The people wasting their time were the people who thought it was their business to police his action.

If he actually gave a shit about our first amendment rights, he'd use his channel to highlight instances where they were violated and offer support to the people involved.

Nope. People don't have to act like how you'd want them to act, and people can care for multiple things in different capacities. It's called diversity, bigot.


Also it'd be cool if you didn't try to shift the conversation away from explaining this:

Police are a unique case though, you have the right to film them yourself, and their own body cam footage is often used against them in lawsuits or criminal charges.

Can you just say it was wrong, or a stupid thing to say, or are you going to pretend wasn't said?

 

[Xzi]

Nope. People don't have to act like how you'd want them to act, and people can care for multiple things in different capacities. It's called diversity, bigot.

Yeah, people are free to act like Eric Cartman from the Special Olympics episode of South Park, but first amendment protections don't extend to consequences imposed on them by society. It's also crazy tone deaf doing this shit as a white dude when you know the cops wouldn't have a tenth of the patience with anyone else.

Can you just say it was wrong, or a stupid thing to say, or are you going to pretend wasn't said?

Sorry bud, you're the one who's both wrong and stupid in this instance. In Colorado we repealed qualified immunity, and if the officers involved in an incident don't hand over body cam footage within two weeks, they're assumed to be in the wrong. This is because when officers know they did do everything by the book, they're quick to hand over footage.

It's not the end-all be-all of deterring unethical/criminal behavior, but it's one of the very few things about police departments that was actually implemented to benefit private citizens more than themselves. For that matter, there were any number of police protests against wearing body cams in the beginning. It was forced on them by the federal government precisely because local departments were doing nothing to hold their own accountable, especially in rural areas.

You want to go on a tirade about surveillance? Fine, but that's mostly an issue with the oligarchy, the vast majority of cameras you see in public spaces are owned by private companies/corporations. There are certainly better methods of protesting that, as well.

 

[tabzer]

first amendment protections don't extend to consequences imposed on them by society.

Point out where in the conversation this point was disputed. I want to believe that you are being coherent.

Police are a unique case though, you have the right to film them yourself, and their own body cam footage is often used against them in lawsuits or criminal charges

You said this in response to "what about Jar Jar Binks filming?" It communicates that one does not have the right to film someone who is not a police officer. That's assuming that you are being coherent in your responses, instead of launching your own personal grievances. Like how how Too Appree is tone-deaf because he's too white and not fighting for minorities. lol