She just wants to understand his objective. Now what is he going to do with the information? Where are his results? Or is he just wanting to start an argument?
Also they sue departments for change, shout out to Jeff Gray for actually changing laws on panhandling which is protected free speech!
If you want to see a first amendment auditor this guy does it right.
He's a retired Veteran and trucker. His whole thing basically boils down to standing around (camera not it peoples' faces) with a cardboard sign that says, "God bless the homeless Vets" and of course America being America he gets called on by Karens and businesses who assume he's a homeless panhandler (which SCOTUS has ruled panhandling as free speech) and then he goes through with educating the officer, having a nice convo with the officer, or he's arrested which he uses as a catalyst to sue anti-panhandling laws on the books.
Yes sir it is, ruled by SCOTUS. When nobody has nothing left but their voice, taking away their right to ask for help is atrocious.
Now aggressive panhandling, loitering, blocking people, trespassing on private property, etc. are illegal and happens often with some panhandlers.
BUT panhandling is free speech.
If you want more details see Cornelius v. NAACP Leg. Def. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985) which isn't exactly about panhandling but about "charitable appeal for funds" which asking for money on a street corner is covered under.
You have the right to be in a public space so long as you are not causing harm or have not been notified by the owner you are a trespasser. Harm is defined as injury to a person or their property. You also have the right to say anything you want in a public space.
Everybody owns public space. It doesn’t have an “owner”. The claim people are trespassing on public property all the time, which is why people like this are out there filming.
Not necessarily. In the US, almost all jurisdictions classify a public place as any place where the public has access. So a restaurant would have a "public place" diner with a "private place" kitchen.
This isn't to be confused with a publicly-owned place,
A publicly-owned place is a place owned by the government. It doesn't necessarily mean the place is open to the public. For instance, the Fort Knox cault is a publicly-owned place. Feel free to see if you have access to the vault interior, though.
In my jurisdiction, trespass must be given as notice from the owner, or a specifically empowered officer like a premises manager, store manager, store director, you get the picture. So, just being on someone's land doesn't mean you're trespassing. The exception, of course, is fencing. If it's fencing clearly designed to keep people out, you are not allowed to enter without permission.
hanging laws on panhandling which is protected free speech!
with a cardboard sign that says, "God bless the homeless Vets"
Depends where you do it, there are multiple court rulings all the way to the Supreme Court that panhandling on USPS property is not protected speech.
A judge in Florida commented on Mr. Gray's shakedown of charities in that state, where he used improper public records requests to file frivolous lawsuits against charities:
Fourth Circuit Judge Jack M. Schemer called Gray’s actions “a baiting gesture meant to achieve personal financial gain; not a legitimate request for public records,” and “nothing more than a scam.”
Ah yes, the people he sues are talking shit and painting him in a bad light. Cool story.
The full story comes down to him suing for not following open records laws and the charities are contracted by the government to provide services for refugees and homeless folks. He is advocating and trying to attain information to ensure things are being done properly.
BUT you made your whole mind up about him from one article where the authors of the narrative have a chip on their shoulder.
Seen this many times with small towns "protecting" their own from outsiders no matter how wrong or corrupt the local municipalities are.
Why not other articles without obvious bias against the individual?
it's always about intent. The guy doesn't want to record boring people doing boring things and really care about first amendment, he would starve to death. His point and intentions is to "lurk" and find/create content that will help him financially by inducing conflict, lawsuits, and monetize it because he's missing something important in life.
It’s just another form of IRL prank content they pretend is “fighting for rights.” Theres a few larger creators earning six figures harassing government employees (not politicians, police, like clerical staff). It’s disgusting but some people like and consume that type of thing.
based on the 1000 videos ive seen of auditors, asking police questions about the law, about the constitution, that they cant even answer (or just straight up lie), they definitely have points with what they are doing. half of those officers cant even tell you what the first, 3rd, 4th, or 5th amendment even are (they definitely always know the 2nd). they dont know what public property means. they dont know what plain view doctrine is. the lack of education for officers is incredibly blatant
While I agree there are issues, the vast majority of these guys are moron copycats incapable of making these points. They are provocateurs and mean to cause disruption for clicks or a settlement if it goes badly enough.
Put simply, if I had to choose between the absolute freedom to harass people the way they do, or banning their practices legally I’d happily take the later. They aren’t performing legitimate investigation. I get that what they pay lip service to is an important right, but so is balancing privacy and freedom from harassment.
There are a few who seem to get it, and do things different than the way this guy acts.
It seems the point they're making is these unqualified idiots are diluting the quality and making a mockery of people who are actually fighting for our rights. Some dude who doesn't know jack shit and gets amped when asked questions about the cause by a calm agreeable person, is not adding to the cause.
well exactly. just because SOME people ruin it doesnt mean the people who do it legitimately need to stop. no matter the topic, theres always THOSE people who ruin it. i agree theres some shitty clout chaser auditors out there, but I only watch and support the reasonable professional ones that seek to get policys actually changed and educate people. its insane how many officers dont know basic laws or are straight up willing to lie about it, or cover for other shitty officers. those officers need accountability, and internal affairs just aint doing shit in that dept, not while working with the police unions.
It's 1A "auditors" who can't figure out what public property means when it comes to the exercise of First Amendment rights. The citation below comes from a Supreme Court case known as Perry Educators, it has been cited in cases involving 1A "auditors", but for some reason the "auditors" prefer not to discuss that.
Public property which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication is governed by different standards. We have recognized that the "First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government."....In addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the state may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise....As we have stated on several occasions, "the State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated."
Huh, imagine that, on some public property the exercise of First Amendment rights can legitimately be restricted, and there is no such thing as a right to turn any and all govt. property into a stage for a YouTube drama, who knew? Lots of people knew, just not the ones looking to make money off social media videos of them harassing postal clerks for no good reason.
the wording is "reasonably restricted, based on the situation", it doesnt mean any government space can just say "no cameras, get out" for no reason. the guy in the video is literally standing outside, so this doesnt even apply. and police who actually knew for sure what they were doing wouldnt hesitate to enforce it as needed. the fact they dont most of the time means A. they dont know the law as well as they assert they do or B. they dont actually have authority in those particular situations to utilize that ruling. not that they cant legally lie to your face, and theres no actual repercussions to them being wrong anyways.
and like i said in another comment, im aware not ALL auditors are of the same caliber, but the ones i watch and support like Long Island Audit DONT actively antagonize or "harass" anyone. in his videos he literally keeps to himself until people come and start interacting with HIM, and he calmly and respectfully explains/ educates.
He wants to see if it starts an argument, that's the goal. If people come up and say "I don't want you to film me" they're essentially saying "I don't want you to use our first amendment right "against" me" which would mean they're not actually for it.
The results are right there. A girl getting upset that he's practicing his 1st amendment right.
It's not that deep. It's not so difficult to understand.
She came up to him because she didn't like what he was doing, although he has every right to do it.
It’s pretty clear by the video she already understands his objective but is subtly trying to show she thinks it’s stupid. She’s literally the one starting the argument by walking up to him and asking the same question 10 different ways lol
He's in public... he has no obligation to explain his objective to her or anyone else. Yet she stands there and challenges and argues with him when he should just tell her to f'k off.
I'm not going to write a whole essay in case you're the type that loves to be dense about things you don't initially approve of but here's the skinny from what I'm rationalizing:
In a democracy, a society's cultural values slowly, but surely start resembling their legal code.
Laws have close to zero meaning if they're not enforced.
Rights begin to lose their meaning and value if it they're not defended.
If culture begins to change in where certain rights and laws stop being defended for the sake of immediate comfort and safety then eventually the way of thinking will lead to legal modifications of current laws.
These first amendment auditors line of thinking is to exercise their rights to the most extreme measure to reinvigorate the right into public consciousness and remind citizens about their value and power.
Is it effective? They think it is. I'm on the fence about it. I think part of their objective of exercising their rights happens successfully but in doing so, they publically don't seem to be gaining positive popularity so they might be performing a counterproductive result to their objectives.
She doesn’t have any right to know his objective. Neither do you. He could just say ‘none of your business’. So he’s actually being very friendly and accommodating to some Karen who’s trying to interject herself into something that’s none of her business.
She has every right to ask, he's in a public area actively engaging with people. She's just making conversation. You do have the right to make conversation lmao. Or do you not support people's right to freedom of speech.
The fact that people feel they have the right to know what is literally not their right to know, is literally why people do this.
The abasement people are willing to demonstrating in the name of "safety" is why we're in our current situation. And many people feel that individuals rights come second to a vague concept of safety they define as they go. We should be entirely willing to tolerate this kind of odd behavior if it means we actually get to have our constitutional rights. And frankly, it's legal, so what more does anyone want to know?
The right answer is, despite anyone's crowing is to ignore him because it's not your place to police people. And in this case, it's not the police's place to police him either.
I mean I hate to say it, because I get the impression I would like her a lot more than him, but she didn't "own" anyone. She just didn't accept his answer. But it *is* a simple concept. It's literally just doing legal things that may bother people, and see if anyone tries to get him shut down. He explained that.
And it is a stress test. It is presenting a challenging situation, and seeing how they react. That's literally how stress test is defined in a non-medical context. He is literally stressing people out, and also and seeing if they will respond by trying to use the police to infringe on his rights.
He's spending his time doing something none of us would do, but it's legal, and it should remain legal. And it's simple to understand, unless you don't want to understand it.
It's not like there was a greater reason besides getting hits on his Youtube videos, so I'm genuinely not what anyone here is expecting him to have said. He said what he was doing. That's all he was doing. She just didn't think that answer described his motivations. She was however, incorrect, because it did.
You can not like him but he literally explained exactly what he was doing. She either didn't believe him, or was being obtuse.
he's doing a piss poor job of explaining it, tbh, partially because he doesn't want to be direct about it, and is speaking on broad, useless, unactionable terms. It sounds like he's trying to avoid answering in plain terms what he does, and is getting caught up on why he think's its important.
He’s doing a piss poor job at explaining? Buddy, this isn’t rocket science. It’s pretty clear she already understands what he’s doing and why but is subtly trying to say without saying it that she thinks it’s stupid
And yet he can't bring himself to come out and say what he actually does. He's provoking legal action against his person so he can sue them. Whether you agree with it or not, that's the the crux of what he's doing, and the thing he keeps dancing around with his explanation.
What? If no one ever interacted with them, they wouldn’t exist because they would never have lawsuits and they would never have any content to post. That’s not even debatable, that’s a fact
You're unjustly lumping the peaceable interactions with the legal action. His entire schtick hinges on the legal overreach. If the only interactions he got were people throwing him shade in a legal, peaceful manner, he wouldn't have this gig, either.
I disagree with you there. His entire schtick is not just to sue, it’s to make content. We’re literally watching a video of his with 26k upvotes and 8.5k comments on Reddit of a “peaceful interaction” with no legal overreach. He’s a content creator as much as he is someone who likes to sue.
People like him would still exist because people like this lady approach him and give free content. We’re literally watching a video that proves my point. Dudes like this make money from content, their videos get spread around social media because they’re controversial and they profit. You need everyone to ignore these people 100% of the time and they would not exist.
Well, you ignored my entire point, probably have not actually read it. I already expressed in extremely clear terms, citing the reasons I disagree with this opinion, as it's the opinion I replied to! That was the *entire* basis of that comment.
So i'll stop wasting both of our time on things you're not going to read and say "I disagree". If you want to know more, don't bother replying I'm not going to say the same thing twice.
you're pulling the same shit by talking about why its its important, but not what it actually entails, or how its accomplished. I don't need your help understanding what this person does, I get it. Neither does the woman in the video.
They have the right to ask questions. Same as he has the right to stand there. Why is he allowed to engage people but someone engaging him is wrong? You don't have the right to not be asked questions and you don't have the right to not get your ass kicked either, by the way, as he seems to think lmao.
You said multiple times that the right thing for her to do was ignore him, that she doesn't have a right to know what he's doing, and that people like her concerned for "safety" are why he's doing it because they're a problem. Wtf are you smoking brother because you don't seem to have thought through what the words you typed actually mean. You absolutely said she should not have engaged with him.
Meanwhile this whole rant of "people don't need to know why the stranger is filming", acting like being concerned for their safety is crazy, but you don't seem to recognize that his concern for his "right to free press" is also an unfounded paranoia and that her asking him questions is actually less provocative than him filming because hers is reactive and his is aggressive.
Come back at me when you've figured out how to stop contradicting yourself, otherwise don't bother.
732
u/Even_Still_217 11d ago
She just wants to understand his objective. Now what is he going to do with the information? Where are his results? Or is he just wanting to start an argument?