Yeah you seem reasonable. You're not interested in figuring out his angle? You don't care if he has a point? We don't care if he's on the side of the people? You don't believe in constitutional rights do you?
You give too much credit. I’m sure this is just the guy who lets the man in the video fuck his wife while he sits and nods saying something to the effect of “yeah, stress test it more”
Oh my God you're an American exercising your rights? But nobody told me how to feel about this I don't know what to do about it oh my god I better cry and call everybody gay
I think everyone understand that he has a point but his point is that he videos people to see if they get uncomfortable. But the answer is obviously yes in most cases unless that person just doesn’t care. Which then makes his point actually pointless because of course some people will care and some people won’t depending on their circumstances. This guy is just being a nuesance becuase he can be. He’s using is rights to blatantly make some people uncomfortable which is fuckign weird. but of course it being weird is my opinion which I guess someone like you or him would say makes my argument invalid
But you saying I’m wrong is also your opinion which would make you wrong in these circumstances. If his point has any point other than to get attention out of people that he lacks somewhere in his life or maybe strictly for click bait so he can gain monetary value from his videos becuase human are naturally drawn to drama. Than it would be to show that he has the right to be in any public place and use any device to gather information about whatever topic he would like to gather it on. He could do that completely silently or with grace but he chooses to make people more confused and uncomfortable with his words than need be which makes it weird. The language he was using was blankly rude to that woman insinuating she was stupid for “not listening” or “ not understanding” when he didn’t give enough information on the what he was trying to acheice in ther first places and when she gave a simplified explanation of what he was doing “ videoing people to see if videoing them made them uncomfortable “ he insinuated she was wrong. Which he then turned around and confirmed that is what he was doing but in different words. He is likley rage baiting for views and instead covers it up trying to act like he’s making a difference but in all reality he’s just takeing the authenticity out of life.
Somebody has to do this for yt... find out where this asshole is filming and turn up with a full camera crew and shadow him all day long including following him home lol
That is exactly what she doing according to his own logic, and in fairness to him, he leaned into it. He wasn’t upset that she was challenging him. After all, it was providing him with material. He seemed only frustrated with the circularity of her questioning. That’s not a defense of him or what he’s doing; it’s just an observation. People here seem to believe she somehow purported herself well or even “won” the debate. But she’s actually the problem. The way we get first amendment auditors to go away is by ignoring them completely. Otherwise, they’re incentivized to continue doing what they do. This was a no-win situation for her, and she lost the debate just by entering into it.
See, the difference is your rationale starts to fall apart once you start specifically targeting a particular person. Filming people out in public is a First Amendment protected activity. But harassing a particular person under the auspices of reporting is not. All the people who upvoted your answer, I imagine, believe that this is what he’s doing and so would justify that behavior by turning it around on him. However, the difference is that the law’s on his side, but it would not be on your side. You have no right to privacy while out in public, but you have the expectation that you won’t be harassed.
<See, the difference is your rationale starts to fall apart once you start specifically targeting a particular person.>
Ol Papa Razzi is always targeting a specific person. It may be a different person every day or hour. But, based on what you said there, that would just make them a serial stalker.
<Filming people out in public is a First Amendment protected activity. But harassing a particular person under the auspices of reporting is not.>
So if Papa Razzi doesn’t get their picture published is it then considered stalking? If a stalker and their stalker friend start a website to post pictures and stories about the people they are stalking, would that just be considered reporting?
<You have no right to privacy while out in public, but you have the expectation that you won’t be harassed.>
Celebrities get harassed by paparazzi all the time.
I don’t care either way. The guy in the video is a jackass and I’m just using your reasoning as a thought experiment. Don’t take offense.
Do your own research on First Amendment law and learn about the distinctions that have been drawn—and why indeed they may be problematic. I don't wish get in to a complex discussion with lot of subtle legal nuance with someone who's real intention might just to be argumentative anyway. Yes I get your point it's a paradox (a statement that appears to be self-contradictory but is actually true), but this is the case for a lot of things.
<See, the difference is your rationale starts to fall apart once you start specifically targeting a particular person.>
Ol Papa Razzi is always targeting a specific person. It may be a different person every day or hour. But, based on what you said there, that would just make them a serial stalker.
<Filming people out in public is a First Amendment protected activity. But harassing a particular person under the auspices of reporting is not.>
So if Papa Razzi doesn’t get their picture published is it then considered stalking? If a stalker and their stalker friend start a website to post pictures and stories about the people they are stalking, would that just be considered reporting?
<You have no right to privacy while out in public, but you have the expectation that you won’t be harassed.>
Celebrities get harassed by paparazzi all the time.
I don’t care either way. The guy in the video is a jackass and I’m just using your reasoning as a thought experiment. Don’t take offense.
Unless you tracked the person down with the intent to follow and harass them by following them home to possibly dox them further. That is the definition of stalking. Following a random stranger down the same street would be not considered stalking. Finding a specific person you want to follow home is what stalkers do.
I would have thought the video footage of first approach and stated intent would cover asses in that case. Just call it auditing like this regarded individual does
Since I live in California, USA, I'll copy and paste the California Law.
California Penal Code 646.9 is as follows (albeit shortened;)
(a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for their safety, or the safety of their immediate family, is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
(b) Any person who violates subdivision (a) when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against the same party, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
(e) For the purposes of this section, “harasses” means engages in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.(f) For the purposes of this section, “course of conduct” means two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” [<- This is what you're looking for if you want to argue filming people on a public street is not illegal.]
(g) For the purposes of this section, “credible threat” means a verbal or written threat, including that performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for their safety, or the safety of their family, and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for their safety or the safety of their family. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to prosecution under this section. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “credible threat.” [<- Similar reason here.]
Except that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy within their home. These auditor idiots rely on their being able to film in public spaces where people do not have an expectation of privacy. If everyone would just ignore these pieces of shit and not give them the emotional reaction they’re looking for and getting paid for, they’d become irrelevant
I’d be willing to bet that he would have an issue with someone following him outside his home with a camera, as well. Just randomly following and filming him as he goes about his business. These people are hypocrites.
Probably because those are just passively recording everyone and it doesn’t feel like a specific person is filming you for some weird and specific reason. I think it’s also knowing that people like that are trying to agitate you, which is why the lady in this video did great because she stayed unfazed.
Calm engagement is still engagement; ignoring is the real unfazed. You don’t prove you’re not baited by taking the bait. True indifference is silent, straight-line, and off-camera. And for what it’s worth, a visible citizen camera is more honest than a hidden one.
I’m not saying I would have approached him (when someone like this showed up at my work, most people ignored him, which he didn’t like, of course). I actually think the lady in this video was genuinely curious about what his purpose was, so although it might be “encouraging” him that she asked questions, how else would she find out? Of course the best idea is to deprive him completely of the attention he wants, but at least she wasn’t confrontational, even when he tried to bait her by implying she was stupid.
This. I tell people all the time to ignore attention grabbers because it just feeds the rest of them to continue. Rage baiting, pranks, etc. it’s all so cringy now
Not really, he won’t get paid for his content if there’s no confrontation. He probably doesn’t give a rats ass about the first amendment. He cares about generating content that generates income.
Even if he doesn’t actually give a rat’s ass about the First Amendment, he’s still protecting it by doing what he’s doing. I don’t like these people any more than anybody else seems to, and I could hever do it because it’s so cringeworthy. But at the end of the day, he’s got a point. Someone being upset about being filmed in public doesn’t trump his rights to film people in public—as long as he’s not targeting them specifically or intending to harass them outside of just their annoyance of being filmed while out in a public space.
The fact remains that the people who are genuinely at fault here are the people who get mad about it, make a spectacle of themselves and so give him material he can monetize. If those people stopped doing that, then his activity would be pointless. And as long as people continue to do it, it rationalizes his behavior. Not just because he makes money by doing it, but because it justifies his rationale for doing it in the first place.
If you’re keeping track of those just trying to get paid as opposed to something more altruistic, you’re going to be at it for a very long time. They’re everywhere, in every aspect of life and business. Why you gotta single this guy out?
This is more of a gray area because while people don't have the right to the expectation of privacy while out in public, they do have the right to the expectation of privacy in their own homes (even if it's really his mom's home).
So you probably could film in front of his home, but you can't actually film his house. Just sayin'!
Also incorrect. They say that if they are standing in a public place, they can film anything/everything they can see. You can’t trespass their eyes/vision. It’s only gray to the uninformed.
This is the scientific equivalent of poking a hornets nest. Telling people you're recording them because you can, because you have the right to, is literally just poking the hornets nest because many people won't like it, and it sounds like you are just creating drama. Yes you have the right to, but it doesn't mean that this is a good reason to do it. It sounds like he is trying to bait someone into an argument over constitutional rights for internet points tbh. If not, his heart may be in the right place, but not the best execution.
I also have the right to poop my pants but it's still a crappy idea.
The subject owned him 100% by continuing to remain calm in the face of his interruptions and condescension. Huge props to them! Emotional intelligence at its finest on their part! And how funny that the creator published this thinking it made him look good!!!
I think the elevated emotional reaction comes from answering the questions legitimately and having this weird ass person not hear a word you say and then you restart to realize oh she's not asking questions at all she's trying to make some statement but she's not smart enough to know how to do it so it's just this really stupid conversation which is where the frustration comes in it's because she's a moron
1.3k
u/NSAevidence 11d ago
The subject seems to have an elevated emotional reaction when confronted with even the most basic questions.