Re filming in libraries and such. They are not trying to film any particular activity. They are filming to specifically make people “uncomfortable “ (which is not at all illegal) to provoke the police being called. If the police come and inform library staff and patrons that the person is allowed to film they “pass” the audit. If they are asked to stop filming or asked to leave the police have “failed”
Both, I've been down the rabbit hole and some are just fine. Some filming here and there not doing anything wrong and then if the police show up, film their encounter maintain their rights but are civil about it. Some are jerks that are just trying to provoke the cops, have no idea what they are actually allowed to do and not allowed to do. There is a channel called audit the audit which the owner of the channel watches these interactions and gives context as much as he can and then grades everyone. He is usually pretty fair and is an interesting watch
@@robertmagill6005 That is not happening. Totally legal to point a camera at a police officer and they should know this. No possible way to prevent them from making complete asses of themselves. They do that all on their own. Just ignore the camera and walk the fuck away. If they just did that there wouldn't be anymore content. But all of the idiot piece of shit cops just keep pushing.
My favorite is the auditor that has the sign “Bless the homeless veterans “. That’s all he says, doesn’t panhandle or enter buildings. He does it on sidewalks, never blocking movement past him, but is harassed all the time by police. There was another auditor in a police parking asking for a supervisor and the supervisor corrected the officer and gathered other officers and made sure that they understood the law. It was all shown and that was a good reaction.
you don't see the parts where he demands money and blocks people from going into places to get the cops called on him. that is the magic of these vids they can be edited or full context left out.
@@joshuatempleton9556 Jeff Gray (HYO) asks for money, never “demands” it, directly in front of cops, to prove the point that “panhandling”, AKA requesting help, is constitutionally protected. He never blocks any places. You’re completely wrong and maliciously misrepresenting him, with zero evidence.
The library incident with Long Island Audit is being misreported by Legal Eagle. In a follow-up, the police admit they shouldn't have removed him. L.E. also left out the part where one of the cops said that "20 years ago he'd be dead with his teeth missing." And he earned himself an 8 day unpaid vacation.
1st amendment auditors believe that the law needs to be followed by everyone. Sovereign citizens believe that they don’t have to follow any laws they don’t agree with.
A lot of these videos are people trying to file complaints against officers and wanting to document that process to show the corruption, as the answer to these complaints is usually "we investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong".
Yeah because 9/10 times they did nothing wrong. These so-called auditors do not understand the laws. Just because you have a camera in your hand doesn't give you special privileges. You still have to comply with the rules, policies, and regulations of the building.
@@TheLogicalvoice-wj5yp Of course having a camera does not grant you "special privileges", but you still have the SAME privileges as any other person in the U.S. who is protected by the Constitution. The rules, policies and regulations implemented in many buildings, especially public buildings and government service locations, are actually illegal and violate the Constitution (this is not opinion, this has actually already been litigated and established by the Supreme Court) so these auditors are exposing these unlawful policies and trying to educate the public and the building administrators who seem to actually be ignorant of the law and get these policies changed. Their point is that if no one says anything about the erosion of our rights like this, it will become normal and even accepted and we will slowly lose those rights without even realizing it.
@@tsunami-lightwave9395 Wrong. They are not unconstitutional. They are in fact very constitutional. The courts have ruled numerous times that they are constitutional. See Sheets vs Porta Gunta, See US vs Kokinda. The SCOTUS has never ruled that way. That is a complete 100% myth created by morons that can't read actual court rulings. That is why these 1st amendment auditors are getting arrested and thrown in jail and getting convicted for trespass, harassment, etc ...
Yuko you are wrong there a privately owned place can restrict speech which includes filming however even in a privately owned building held open to the public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for anything visible to the public.
@@kylejohns2288 if a privately owned place wants you off their property for filming then you don't have a right to be there. That is the sticking point. While you don't have reasonable expectation of privacy in a place open to the public, you can still be tossed out for what you do. Then certainly arrested and trespassed if you refuse. Not to mention filming things like private information on computers or papers isn't protected.
Once you enter a specific building that changes. Which is why governments like courthouses, DMVs, tax offices, prisons etc ... can have policies rules and restrictions on certain 1st amendment activities. You're right. walking along outside in a city park etc... yeah you don't have an expectation of privacy.
@@TheLogicalvoice-wj5ypper the law gov building can place restrictions based on place and manner. Which is why posted restricted areas are a no go. Also why courtrooms can be restricted but places like the hallways and lobbies of courthouses have been ruled as unrestricted spaces. As far as private information it is up to the personal to ensure that the privacy of information on computers and paperwork is taken care of by making sure it is not in full view of the public. Anything that can be seen can be recorded in public unrestricted spaces per settled law
Long Island audit goes into libraries not to film people but to see the structure itself, you know admiration of architecture, and to see what public services the library might offer
Indeed, I came across Audit the Audit last winter and have found many of their videos entertaining and informative. They do a good job of examining a lot of these audits and grading those involved. Sometimes it's law enforcement in the wrong, and sometimes it's the auditor(s), and the channel does a good job of analyzing the right and wrong that happens during such interactions.
@@robertmagill6005You’re confused and biased if you’re using the blanket statement that they’re trying to harass people. Filming in public is not harassment my guy. We’re all filmed hundreds of times in public the minute we leave our house, it’s just a control issue for the people who demand privacy while in public. There are auditors who only film their own traffic stops, with the cops who stopped them and don’t have bodycams
@@Tortilla.Reform they're not trying to harass people that's what they are doing. Save the auditor simp bullshit for people stupid enough to swallow it.
The point of the first amendment was to ensure that nefarious governments couldnt silence journalists from outing them. Had nothing to do with youtubers harassing citizens to make money from youtube.
@@dane1056 Can't harass citizens that do not want to be harassed while filming in public. I see it in all audit videos. Only the idiots that just have to confront the cameraman feel harassed. Majority of the people going by do not care and are not feeling harassed.
When auditors go to the post office there's a poster on the wall (USPS Poster 7) that states that filming is allowed in public accessible areas for news media purposes. Many times they will call the police anyway only to find that the post office is Federal jurisdiction and the postal inspector shows up to calm everyone down.
@@jdcrypto2242 And like everything auditors and their supporters do, they create their own interpretation. If it truly is only the Post Master then why would they leave it vague by putting "authorized personnel". Why create the confusion when you could write Post Master General? Were they worried they were going to run out of ink by writing the extra couple letters that it would have taken? Authorized personnel are the office managers that run the building at the time. Theres a reason why auditors dont try and make real change and stick to harassing office workers and customers and then "leave under threat of arrest". If its truly as clear cut as they all pretend they could certainly file large lawsuits everytime which would force the hand of the higher ups to make things crystal clear to everyone involved.
@@jdcrypto2242 what exactly are they overriding when it's in own their poster 7 and what use is there putting up a policy that is unlawful and if it is unlawful a lawsuit will easily rectify that. There have been 100s if not more audits within the post office. If a fraction of those push for a lawsuit then thats easily 10s of millions to pay out and those "unlawful" policies would be removed immediately.
As a rule of thumb, you can record in any place that you're permitted to be. You can record in any publicly accessible areas as long as you can see inside them . For your police tape example, you can stand against the tape, and record anything that you can see from outside of the tape.
I apologize, I have a lot of thoughts, so I’m just going to answer questions you ask in individual comments as they come up. The point of going to post offices and libraries is that they are public places. Auditors will also go to city halls and police departments and department of corrections and DMVs/BMVs, etc… You mentioned not being allowed to film people in places like Japan, well a large reason auditors go to these places is to exercise their right to film because people genuinely think America has laws that prevents recording in public. So what they auditors do is go in public and film specifically to educate people that they CAN film. And the reason they do this is because city halls will often post signs saying people can’t film. So if they have a bad interaction or they feel like they’re being treated unfairly, they have no way to document the issue. So auditors go to these places to exercise their rights with the idea being, if you don’t exercise your rights, eventually you will lose those rights. It’s not that they feel like they are already losing them as much as they are preemptively keeping those rights relevant so they don’t get forgotten or stomped on. Every time an auditor goes into a library, they’re told that they can’t record. And that, in and of itself, is a problem. We have the right to record in public. Just imagine being at a library with your kids, and your daughter is reading a book and you want to film her for memories, but you get harassed by the employees about not recording. What if you go in and they refuse to let you see the books because of the way you look or the color of your skin. How do you document that injustice? So, it’s important that citizens and public servants understand that people are allowed to record in public because there are an infinite number of reasons why someone might WANT to record in a library or post office. So auditors are just making sure people know that we CAN
Auditors rely on the Constitution as the authority or basis for their actions. My understanding is that Sovereign citizens could care less about the Constitution or case law stemming from it. Audits vary greatly depending on the attitude of the auditor. Some can get pretty aggressive, other auditors keep things as calm as possible so as not to provoke a violent reaction.
Coming at you from Japan here (long time resident). Interestingly, people seriously overestimate the law here because of how the internet tends to blow up a couple stories and leave the details in the dust. A lot of things people think are laws here are actually just "suggestions" that people follow just because they were asked to by the government. A good example is how people think that cameras here have to have a shutter sound by law. It's not actually a law - it's just a government recommendation. Because the government recommends it, every company includes the feature. You can legally download an app that lets you use your camera without the sound and you won't get in trouble. You don't have to blur anyone's face in public, either. Some people have sued for violating their privacy, but such cases almost never happen and, even when they do, it's probably not going to go anywhere unless the person was intentionally and obviously targeting that one person. The real, on-the-books laws here regarding most things are actually extremely similar to laws in the US (makes sense since the US was the ones who wrote most of those laws circa 1945 and they haven't change much since). The one big difference here is you aren't even going to get that officer in your face in the first place here because most local police have (I shit you not) actual policies to not get involved in anything unless it's clearly criminal activity (and they've been documented on video (no blur) actually ignoring criminal activity in some specific cases in Tokyo). For all their faults though, police here are generally just WAY more interested in helping people than putting them in jail or fining them for going 2mph over the speed limit. I was walking on a cane one day going to work when there was a ton of snow out. A police officer literally jogged up to me risking slipping on the ice to offer me a ride. He took me to work in his personal car (he was parked nearby and he wouldn't want to put me in a squad car to take me to work). There was no reason for him to do that. Note that this was in a rural town, though. They're not going to be nearly that nice in a tourist city like Tokyo or Kyoto. Most of Japan's officers are incredible. Go to the city and they suddenly get fairly American again. They still aren't going to harass people for not doing anything illegal, though (unless you're black, in which case, all bets are off - trust me here; I know people).
Just because cops have body cams does not mean they are transparent. Ever notice when something happens and it puts the police in a good light the footage gets released within hours. But when they do something wrong it can take months or years or they simply say the footage was lost or the cam was not recording.
There are no rights, only temporary privileges. One auditor went to a police station to film and not only was he allowed to film but invited into the police chief's office and they had a long conversation about general things and the chief was super cool. It was uploaded.
And then there's some like riot radio grrrl that was in tears in her car because she spent the whole day going to different places and on one bothered her😂
What I love about the US Constitution, is specifically the 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. They aren't just our civilian rights, those were written to limit/restrict government authority. And also, Sean (Long Island Audit) has been hired by various county sherriff's office around the country to teach classes on activism and constitutional rights.
@dane1056 issues they don't start. If they're yelling at people to start an incident that's one thing but I've seen lots of videos where police violated rights and their own words "we got reports of a guy walking around with a camera"
@@tomraineofmagigor3499 and I've seen tonnes where they are left to their own devices with no-one bothering them so they escalate until they get the reaction they want. Bang on windows to make sure they get attention, pick out people that look irritable and concentrate on them, follow people around. wait till someone walks towards the parking lot then run up to cars and film making it obvious that they are filming the license plates and so on, zoom in on computer screens, pretending they have a gun behind their back in front of cops, filming at schools because they know that's more likely to get people anxious about some strange man who's covering his face with kids around. It's all designed to play on peoples fears and all just to make money on RUclips.
@@dane1056 Wow... I don't know what videos you have watched but I have never seen anyone hitting on windows. I have seen them point the camera in the window but not hit it.
@@thomascarter2922 there have been several where they don't realize they are being filmed and one guy took a pee on a building and another threw rocks at people etc.
Sovereign citizens tend to think the laws don't apply to them. Auditors go out to see if the law actually is applied. There is little of interest to film in a post office or library except that it's legal to do so. And so often staff and police will act way out of line in response to this filming.
@jaywinner328 Where it is legal to film inside libraries, they can have a no filming policy and enforce the policy by trespassing anyone who refuses to comply. Unlike most public places, libraries are limited public forums, which means they can put reasonable limitations on our First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court established three different types of public forums in Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983): traditional, limited and nonpublic. Limited and nonpublic fourms can reasonably limits our First Amendment rights. This has passed the scrutiny the courts and have found to be Constitutional. Typically, nonpublic forums are established inside Courthouses, Schools, Universities, and Libraries, but can also be applied to other public places. In Kreimer v. Board of Police of Morristown, NJ, an important court opinion addressing a library user’s right to enter and use the library, the court held that because public libraries are a limited public forum, constitutional protection is afforded only to those expressive activities that are consistent with the mission and purpose of the library. A public library is only obligated to permit the public to exercise rights that are consistent with the government’s intent in establishing the library as a limited public forum for the purpose of receiving information and accessing the library’s books, programs, and online resources. According to the Kreimer opinion, other activities, including activities such as photography, filming, petition-gathering, assemblies, and public speeches, may be regulated by the library using reasonable, viewpoint neutral, time, place, and manner rules. Brown v. Louisiana, (1966). A library is "a place dedicated to quiet, to knowledge, and to beauty." Its very purpose is to aid in the acquisition of knowledge through reading, writing and quiet contemplation. Thus, the exercise of other oral and interactive First Amendment activities is antithetical to the nature of the Library. These arguably conflicting characteristics, at least in a First Amendment sense, support our conclusion that the Library constitutes a limited public forum, a sub-category of designated public fora.21 See Brody v. Spang, at 1118. We thus adopt the reasoning of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School District, 927 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1991), where the court held that a limited public forum "is created when government opens a nonpublic forum but limits the expressive activity to certain kinds of speakers or to the discussion of certain subjects.... In the case of a limited public forum, constitutional protection is afforded only to expressive activity of a genre similar to those that government has admitted to the limited forum." Id. at 692 (emphasis supplied).22 Hence, as a limited public forum, the Library is obligated only to permit the public to exercise rights that are consistent with the nature of the Library and consistent with the government's intent in designating the Library as a public forum.23 Other activities need not be tolerated. Many auditors think there are no limitations to our rights and that they are absolute, this is not the case filming can be limited by Time, Place, and Manner, for example, you are allowed to record on a sidewalk but if you try filming up women's skirts the manner of filming is trying to invade the privacy rights of another, so it falls into an illegal recording. So, where it is not illegal to film in public or even inside a nonpublic forums there are places that filming is illegal like inside restrooms or locker rooms or tanning room or changing rooms because those places people can reasonably expect privacy.
@@urgreatestenemy3044 I'm not sure that no recording would be considered a reasonable limit for a library. A protest that would be legal on a sidewalk might not be in a library because it would disrupt the intended use of the library, recording during business hours does not.
@jaywinner328 Libraries have policies that the American Library Association (ALA) has put in place and a libraries Bill of Rights, this the the ALA'S position on privacy. "Privacy is essential to free inquiry in the library because it enables library users to select, access, and consider information and ideas without fear of embarrassment, judgment, punishment, or ostracism. A lack of privacy in what one reads and views in the library can have a significant chilling effect upon library users’ willingness to exercise their First Amendment right to read, thereby impairing free access to ideas. True liberty of choice in the library requires both a varied selection of materials and the assurance that one's choices are not monitored. The possibility of surveillance, whether direct or through access to records of speech, research and exploration, undermines a democratic society. One cannot exercise the right to read if the possible consequences include damage to one's reputation, ostracism from the community or workplace, or criminal penalties. Choice requires both a varied selection and the assurance that one's choice is not monitored. For libraries to flourish as centers for uninhibited access to information, librarians must stand behind their users' right to privacy and freedom of inquiry." Some people feel that allowing recording from outside sources could be a problem for some library users and restricting the right to film is reasonable. Transparency for the government is good, but it could come with a cost of having no privacy in what people choose to read or check out. There are also other concerns like libraries are the only places that store old newspapers' negatives a reporter doing an investigation wouldn't want people recording and live streaming what they are looking at as it could tip others off to their story. People also bring their intellectual property into Libraries to do research and work on new ideas, it is a privacy concern if people record their papers as their ideas could be stolen or their papers could be plagiarized by others.
@@urgreatestenemy3044 That's still policy which laws and the constitution would supersede. And based on their own policies, this seems to be about records, not about being physically seen in a library. 4. If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, how can anyone expect privacy in a library? A library cannot be responsible for someone being seen or recognized in a library but should take steps to protect user privacy whenever possible. That is, in a library, a user’s face may be recognized, but that does not mean that the subject of the user’s interest must also be known.
Remember in the library clip legal eagle shows the video I watched actually showed one of those officers admitting that if recording wasn't as big as thing he could have made the guy disappear or something like that. I remember how he phrased it but it was very much a threat to either have them falsely inprisoned or murdered. You may have been exaggerating but it was deeply concerning that he didn't sound like he would even be questioned for it.
I think it's funny that when LegalEagle talks about long island audits who is one of the most polite auditors. He says that he relishes in confrontational tactics, which I disagree with but in the video he shows one of the cops say on body cam to is fellow officers 20 years ago this guy would be found dead with his teeth missing.
In terms of less orthodox locations like post offices and libraries, I'd say that there are three, maybe four major goals: highlighting misconduct from specific government employees and offices, exposing a systemic lack of training regarding citizens' rights, exercising the right to public filming so that it isn't gradually eroded, and normalizing the practice of public filming to the general public. Oftentimes, more popular auditors will receive tips about incompetent, corrupt, or otherwise unbecoming conduct from public employees in various positions. In that context, they're conducting a larger investigation in which the first amendment audit can act as a sort of litmus test for general tyranny levels, bringing much larger attention to corruption problems in otherwise isolated communities. Occasionally the initial coverage directly causes resignations or retraining, whereas in other cases it greatly boosts the efforts of local citizens who continue to fight for change, and inspires others to start fighting against small-town corruption in the first place. As far as exposing a systemic lack of training, post offices are federally required to allow photography in entrances and lobbies, as part of a 2016 set of rules and regulations that must also be conspicuously posted on the property. Nevertheless, many such locations fail to respect these rules that are usually posted right inside their front entrances. Furthermore, many states have laws regarding open records requests that require various public offices to accept records requests in a certain manner, which many public employees often fail to do despite that literally being illegal. Then there's the matter of simply regularly exercising the right to film in public in order to normalize the practice, precisely so we don't end up like a country like Japan. Many random citizens are apparently largely misinformed about privacy rights, often getting unreasonably aggressive over filming in public areas that they happen to pass by. More important however is normalizing filming our interactions at government offices, so that random citizens who want incontrovertible records of their tribulations have some defense against corruption and institutional incompetence.
The auditor reasons are that its established that post offices have rules that allow photography in the lobby. Libraries are a grey area legally but banning someone from a library because if filming is very subjective.
In post offices there is a poster (poster 7) that states the rules and regulations for conduct within the post office. And it specifically states that all photography is allowed for news purposes except where prohibited. The freedom of press allows any citizen to be a member of the press, there isn't a license there aren't any credentials, you just have gather and disseminate info. Press passes are only issued in private venues. As long as you are in public you can be recorded the 2 party consent only governs private conversations in private venues
But that the point you don't need ask permission to film in public! You don't need permission to no any constitutional rights! It's more if the public and the government officials know what other people are constitutional rights! Even limited public forums and time place and manner restrictions have to fallow the law! Filming falls under 2 different constitutional rights, gathering news and addressing the government! If you want to, you can be in a public space recording the government work all day!
I'd highly suggest watching Honor Your Oath, Long Island Audit, Audit the Audit, and Lackluster. Even if you don't do it for a video, they will give you a better idea of what good auditors are doing.
I know for a fact one of those is a lying pos. His channel is known for lying about what actually happens. The others you can probably accept as true, but I know this particular one lies all time. I will not call out his channel by name, but it sounds like something doesn't shine. It is missing it's...
Its not about suing for money, it is about reinforcing people's rights. Cops don't listen to citizens, with a few exceptions. Cops HAVE to listen to courts.
I watch these guys a lot. It illustrates how many in law enforcement, as with any profession, are poorly informed & primarily interested in asserting their power. Again this is a human trait not a swipe at public servants, but it is a lot of power for an individual which demands powerful oversight and institutions. Frequently a Sergeant is called to the scene who straightens out the under informed deputies.
The problem is, frauditors are also poorly informed. For example, how they don't seem to recognize the Public Forum Doctrine as set down by the Supreme Court
@@chemquests the ones with the problem regarding being misinformed are the frauditors. They go off of feelings or some strange, anarchist logic, not laws
Too many of them are convicted felons who are just out to antagonize people for RUclips fame and money. Ironton Copwatch is a good one but gets very little views. The drama is what gets the views so more and more of these people realise they have to push the limit to make money.
They go to the post office and library because those are the easiest settings to make individuals uncomfortable provoke an interaction. They do not post videos of positive interactions because that content does not get clicks/ad revenue. Also what they will do is go through any door that isn't locked or marked as no entry as a fast track to an altercation.
The auditors don't go in areas marked authorized only. They stay in the public lobbys, cops are called and auditors are usually thrown out or arrested.
Filming in the library, Post Office, etc is important because it normalizes recording of our public servants in the course of their duty--our legal right--which will make it easier for normal folks to record when they have an actual gripe with the government agency and they need the evidence to support a complaint.
2 of the best that have fewer subscribers: Audit Them works mostly around Illinois, and concentrates on enforcing FOIA law compliance. IAM Free works mostly in the Pacific Northwest, and holds a lot of government agencies accountable based on “tips/leads” of certain agencies not working correctly. ✌️
I have already seen videos where, for example, the policeman said why are we getting all these crazy people and took the camera and deleted the video And that she was later asked by the lawyer of the person whose video he deleted why he did it Can you, I wasn't that, it was the judge and the lawyer then asked why should the judge please delete the video I have no idea whether it is with the judge And in the bodycam recordings of his colleague you could see exactly how he took the camera and then deleted it
@@HomesteadDNA then every peanut that broadly claims that there's no expectation in in public needs to change their mantra because there clearly is. These same morons will film over office walls, zoom in on stuff, shove their cameras up against reflective glass. All things that have been put in place to create a later of privacy. So what is it. Sounds like people like yourself pick and choose to suit your agenda.
You do know these arent Sovereign Citizens, right? I mean, if you only watch Legal Eagle you dont know much about anything, but I assume you know more than that.
police will try to use "Interference" to stop you from recording, but don't let that fool you. by law "Interference" is a physical act, putting yourself between the officer and stop, or using some type of violent / fighting language. just recording in a public place can not be deemed "Interference" as long as your a reasonable distance (10-20 feet) from the stop or event you are recording.
@@moonshade6864 it would be in the text of the individual State's statutes. Not all of them require physical violence, a physical act, or the threat of one, but the vast majority do. Look up your own State's "Interference" laws to check. For example, in my state of Kentucky: KRS 519.020 Obstructing Governmental Operations (1) A person is guilty of obstruction Governmental Operations when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or hinders the performance of a governmental function by using or threatening to use physical violence, force, or physical interference There are additional details in the KRS, but they are for specific circumstances.
What they're filming in places like libraries and post offices is usually the walls and artwork and pamphlets. They aren't there for that, rather they are there to see if the officials and police respect the right. Those are public places open to the public, where filming is legal, yet officials often try to criminalize it anyway.
@moonshade6864 Both traditional public forums and limited public forums are open to filming. Only non-public forums are consistently not open to filming. Government buildings where the public is allowed to go are limited public forums, and filming is allowed unless legally prohibited by statute or court order, generally speaking. Federal law actually enshrines the right to record in lobbies, hallways, foyers, and auditoriums into federal statute, including in Post Offices. Government lobbies are limited public forums, not non-public forums, which is what confuses many people.
@@Robertz1986 you may want to recheck that statement because courts have consistently found public property to be a nonpublic forum where the evidence shows that the property’s purpose is to conduct or facilitate government business, and not to provide a forum for public expression. Examples of spaces courts have held to be nonpublic forums include the offices of government employees, the interior of polling places, the mailboxes of public school teachers, lobby areas of government buildings, terminals in publicly operated airports, and military bases
@@HomesteadDNA it doesn't really matter if it is a form of expression or not. Point to me where it makes that distinction within the wording for the Public Forum Doctrine
the courts have ruled that if you can see something from public spaces you can film it and alot f 1A's use this to test if cops will try to kick them way from the area because a cop is supposed to know the laws they are enforcing i have seen videos where a 1A is on a public sidewalk filming a business as the workers in the business try to get cops to remove the 1A but the cops say that they cant i have also seen the opposite and these are the ones they are trying to find and fix
I’ve even caught prison guards sleeping on the job and took photos and sent it to their bosses. Then they tried to retaliate against me an independent contractor. I have far more experience than you in this field and one of my guards was even on my side exposing the corruption and ostracizing guards.
For a History teacher, you seem very unaware of your Constitution Rights. As such, are you doing justice to the students you teach? Do you understand when you must show I.D. to police???
Frauditors go beyond annoying. Three have been convicted of sexual misconduct on a minor/ sexual assault on a minor, 5 or 6 of them have domestic abuse convictions and another handful have assault charges. On top of that, one has recently recorded himself shooting a homeless person. Many of them have stopped recording in government, non- public forum buildings and have started recording privately owned businesses with LIA recording himself harassing and bullying an autistic man
@@dane1056sure but where is the line? Some would say the guy who filmed the Rodney King shooting and the Derek Chauvin Un aliving were interference. Obstruction laws are commonly referred to as contempt of cop laws because of how often they are used to quell free speech. The courts have discussed and drawn all these lines but the system is set up in a way that when police over reach, your tax dollars pay and nothing happens to them. Does that seem like a system that would encourage police to be careful or care at all even about your rights?
Chauvin wasn't responsible for Floyd's death and auditors are just harassing people for views. The first amendment doesn't protect harassment and it is an abuse of the first amendment.
Putting it as simple as possible... auditors film. Cops hate, hate, hate being filmed. You might be surprised how many cops still believe it is still a stop and ID world.
That's a lie and you know it. They only post what gets them views and that's them creating bad situations. It's why they aren't real journalists like they claim. Real journalists don't make themselves part of the story.
@@moonshade6864. “Frauditor” is a nonsense word. It’s meant to be a clever portmanteau, but the “fraud” part of the word is a lie. No fraud is involved.
[16:51] The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the 1A makes no legally meaningful distinction between regular people and institutional media. If institutional media have any greater or lesser set of legal rights or protections, it's because of statute, and not by the 1A (for example, some states protect institutional media from having to reveal their sources when testifying in court).
Watch long island audits. Sean is probably the top tier auditor out there. Some precincts have him come talk to cops about first, fourth and fifth amendments. He is also arrested many times for filming cops from public areas.
The point of auditors is the fact that even though courts have ruled that, police officers will still harass and arrest people/bully them into ID despite no crime/ turn the middle finger into a crime like “disturbing the peace” 🙄
And some don't ask for money, or much, or will ask for non monetary items. Honor Your Oath, for instance, just won 3 lawsuits in Georgia. He got $1791, which I think went to charity, the ordinance removed, and a promise of officer training. Or at least I remember that being what he typically asks.
Auditor's may be a nuisance from time to time, but whom else will keep these rude, entitled public worker's in order? We have all been there where the lady at the counter is just rude as hell, it's time someone put the behavior out in the open!! These patriots are needed!!
@bakedjesus1177 Where libraries are public buildings, they are limited public forums. The Supreme Court established three different types of public forums in Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983): traditional, limited and nonpublic. In limited and nonpublic fourms our First Amendment rights can be limited this includes freedom of press this has passed the scrutiny of our courts and have been found to be Constitutional. This is the reason why libraries can have a no filming policy and they can enforce the policy by trespassing anyone who fails to obey the policy's inside the building. Where there are no state statutes that make filming in libraries illegal they can enforce policies, take the no shoes, no shirt, no service, policy where there is no law that says a person has to wear shoes but it is a health code violation and not obeying the policy can get a person trespassed from the property. Many auditors take advantage of the fact that not many people know case laws, and many staff and police don't know the public forum doctrine or how it is applied to certain public buildings.
@@urgreatestenemy3044 i personally looked up case law on libraries how ever example of public schools you can protest ect which schools can limit such things as to not disrupt classes how ever you are allowed in parking lots as well as main offices in public schools. As for post offices their policies for news or press they are alowed to come in and film the public areas it litterally says it on posters in pretty much every post offices. Which states "photography for news purposes may be taken in entrances lobbies foyers corridors or auditoriums" i would add on schools public meetings or your personal meetings with staff can be recorded. How ever even in rullings of limited public forum the right of filming or photography can only limited if it interferes with its functions or operations. There for they cant just out and ban filming you would have to be filming in a way the obstructs the operations and functions of the facility and just walking around quietly filming would not apply in this case.
@bakedjesus1177 As the law stands today filming can be regulated by limited public forums not all public buildings can call themselves a limited public forum. Long Island Audit sued NYC police departments and challenged their no filming policy, the court agreed that it wasn't in the public interest to limit the right to film inside police station lobby's and making a police station a limited public forum could have a deparmential effect in the government controlling freedom of speech against people who are facing criminal charges. Libraries have policies that the American Library Association (ALA) have put in place and a libraries Bill of Rights, this the the ALA'S position on privacy. "Privacy is essential to free inquiry in the library because it enables library users to select, access, and consider information and ideas without fear of embarrassment, judgment, punishment, or ostracism. A lack of privacy in what one reads and views in the library can have a significant chilling effect upon library users’ willingness to exercise their First Amendment right to read, thereby impairing free access to ideas. True liberty of choice in the library requires both a varied selection of materials and the assurance that one's choices are not monitored. The possibility of surveillance, whether direct or through access to records of speech, research and exploration, undermines a democratic society. One cannot exercise the right to read if the possible consequences include damage to one's reputation, ostracism from the community or workplace, or criminal penalties. Choice requires both a varied selection and the assurance that one's choice is not monitored. For libraries to flourish as centers for uninhibited access to information, librarians must stand behind their users' right to privacy and freedom of inquiry." So you can see that to some people maintaining some privacy in a library serves the public interest as people have a right to read without worrying that what they read will be put on the internet for all to see.
Auditing is not just about the cops respecting our rights, but ALL government employees, including postal workers, library staff, city clerks, DMV, ect. They do not have authority over you if you're not breaking the law. Its all about transparency and accountability.
If you want to do a deep dive into this stuff, I HIGHLY recommend a channel called Audit The Audit. He takes footage of police encounters - sometimes from 1st Amendment auditors, sometimes not - and discuss the legal issues raised by the encounter, and then finally assign a letter grade to each party based on a combination of whether or not they're correct legally and how they conducted themselves. It's been deeply educational to me, and I appreciate how he picks videos on both sides - sometimes the cops get it wrong, but sometimes the cops get it right.
The point of filming in a library or post office is not because there’s anything going on to infringe on people’s rights, the point is to show that people are unaware of their rights and are allowed to film in any public place even in a library or post office
My husband just had 3 of these auditors come into his office building. He doesn’t work for the police. Just for the state. These guys ignored employees trying to get their attention. One of the guys just walked up to a meeting room and filmed the meeting through the window, declared the entire first floor the lobby, told the employees to read the constitution for dummies while stating they didn’t have to give their name because of the 4th Amendment 😐 They 100% ignored rules and regulations of the business, refused to speak to the employees. I have found a lot of these people are just trying to prove they’re smarter than everyone else. And create drama for content ☹️
@10:15. The point if post office audits is that despite the fact that every post office has rules on the wall that says people can film inside (poster 7) many of these government buildings will still call police, and police will still either arrest, trespass, etc. It’s a test of what the police know when called, how they treat citizens, and whether or not they care to read the rules on the wall permitting the “unusual” activity
Public property for filming purposes is areas open to the public, not restricted areas. Lobbies, hallways, and foyers and any place open to the public is generally public.
Free speech does not require the speech to be non confrontational. They do post good interactions. The library and the post office are both public spaces and staffed by public employees.
Filming in public spaces like libraries isnt about catching a crime. Its an easily accessible spot that you can film and will likely make people uncomfortable and therefore get the cops called on them. Its reverse entrapment.
Right, and the point is people shouldnt be uncomfortable with people doing things they are allowed to do. Like, there was a time, and still may be... where a black man might make the patrons of a library uncomfortable.. You would say its the black mans fault for being someone who is "out of the ordinary" and he is "causing the people to be uncomfortable".. this is where you are wrong.
@HomesteadDNA "people shouldn't feel uncomfortable when people do things they are allowed to do" yea, no. That's not the point of it at all. The point is strictly to antagonize and get the cops called on them. People are allowed to open carry, yet doing so makes others uncomfortable because it increases the risk to their lives. In the case with auditors, it's a sense of invasion of privacy and anonymity. There is nothing about the auditors that is saying "you should be comfortable while I film you in public", it's 100% barely legal public nuisance
You can't go in the back, opening doors etc, but if you can see it from public, you can film it. Yes, ANYONE can be press... there is no agency that limits that with "credentials". If you are recording and say you are press, you are press. If you are 30 feet away from a traffic stop, you should be fine. Police like to shove people back blocks or claim you can't record. Supreme court disagrees.
I’m a 3rd amendment auditor, I go to military bases in a short skirt and see if I can trick services members into forcing themselves to be quartered in my home. (They just kick my ass)
If exercising a right causes police to violate those rights, it is not the auditors fault. It is the fact that the police have no respect for those rights, who do not care about lawsuits as the taxpayers pay for their dishonorable behavior. I expect government agents to honor their oath, not spit on it just because there is no accountability.
As long as you are not breaking a law, you are allowed to film in ANY public building. (poster 7) The eyes can't be trespassed. While standing on public property, simply recording can not be considered a crime. "Suspicious activity" is not a crime. Privacy must be created by the individual while in a public setting. "Obstruction of a police officer" etc etc etc must be physical act, speech is never obstruction. Everyone can be "The Press". No entity issues "press credentials" ...that would simply be a media company ID.
The typical touchstone threshold for whether or not one can record another is whether the person being recorded is in a place where there's an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. Outside of such areas (e.g. restrooms, locker rooms, retail dressing rooms for trying on clothes) there's generally no such reasonable expectation. Think of it this way: if someone could put a CCTV/security camera in that area and pretty much no one would bat an eye, then there's no such reasonable expectation of privacy. By a public places, they mean anywhere where an individual can be reasonably inferred to have been invited to be present (shopping centers, stores, parking lots, sidewalks or other rights of way, plazas, building interiors where access is not restricted, etc.). For any public space that is privately owned and operated, the proprietor can ask one to stop filming or leave. But where any place is owned by the government or is operated by them (such as publicly leased private property), they have to treat it as a public place until they've taken clear efforts generally to keep people out (fences, locked doors, prohibited access with clearly visible signage, etc.).
The point in going to places like libraries and Post Offices is that those are publicly funded, and in the case of the Post Office specifically, government buildings. The Post Office even has in its rules and regulations information denoting the fact that public photography is legal in the publicly accessible areas. For more information, look up Post Office poster 7.
You can record anything your eyes can see from a public place except bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. where there is areasonable expectation of privacy. If the mail cam be seen from a public place it can be filmed. It's not up to the videographer to protect that information. We're all the press! Time, place and manner is the standard.
Such a deep dive. This narrator is wrong about Sean, long isle audit. He is extremely polite. When cops respect rights, he praises them. This narrator misrepresented Sean. It's not about filming libraries and post offices. It about seeing how public employees react to legal public filming. Many say, if you don't excersize your rights, you lose them. Many civillians don't know their rights and cops take advantage through intimidation. The auditors want to make sure cops know our rights, yet the evidence proves cops do not know we have rights. Cops believe they are the absolute authority on the street. Auditors have proven this.
Some audits actually say if departments are good with dealing with the public and some want to just get clicks,so you don't know until you deal with them to see how they are.
The princess Diana thing, they could have been done for harrasing, driving citations, not for photography or press activity itself ... See paparazzis in general and remember auditors are angels compared to them.
The reason for the post office and libraries is to show that we have the freedom to communicate. And shows that some think they can take control of your rights. Imagine you go to post office sending mail to ex-wife or other legal needs. Can they refuse to take it? Or just throw it out? Their are people who are without morals
If you make a public records request for police bodycam footage you will be charged upwards of $1000 for the public record. Recording for yourself is free
One of the interesting things that happen when auditors show cops doing the right thing, is that those officers sometimes end up getting fired, or reassigned to a shitty detail in retaliation for not backing up the other ones who were doing the wrong thing.
Should do some of Long Island Audit, on going fight with NYPD but many PD’s actively recruit him for training because the PD’s that violate are in armed rebellion against the Constitution.
I don't watch any 1st Amendment auditors personally but I watch a channel called 'Audit the Audit' who reacts to their content. Moving onto why Post offices or libraries are used, my understanding is that because they are public buildings the auditors have the ability to record unhindered in most cases as the constitution is supposed to protect you against the government. A private business would have the ability to ask someone to no record or to outright leave because of their right to refuse service. Town halls, police stations and really any public entity are used while they Audit. This is all just my understanding but I've never looked into the matter in depth.
Officer's have fewer rights to film than the public. As the police covertly recording is covert surveillance, whereas if there's no expectation of pracy in public the restrictions on the public are very limited.
go watch Honor your oath. Jeff is a real OG in the First Amendment auditing game. He's fair and shows the good along with the bad and he has an easy demeanor while he does his thing. Over the last few years his thing has been fighting against anti panhandling laws. He stands on sidewalks or the steps pf city hall with a handwritten sign that says "God Bless the Homeless Vets". He has been arrested quite a bit for holding a sign. People in this country are very eager to punish anything that is out of the ordinary or undesirable. That's why First amendment auditing has become such a big deal. Another one to check out would be Travis Heinze. He doesn't audit anything. All he does is live his life but the police will not leave him alone because he chooses to live in his car. I would go out on a limb and say that Travis is the most persecuted man in America all for simply existing in the way he wants to live (which isn't illegal or immoral).
16:22 Ok, so the difference between the lobby of a post office and the back is that the back is restricted to all citizens. The point of filming is that anywhere the public is allowed to be, people are allowed to film. The Supreme Court has ruled that a camera is no different than our eyes in that it can see anything it looks at. And because you can’t restrict people from LOOKING at something in public, you also can’t restrict them from RECORDING in public. The lobby of a post office is accessible to the public, the public has a right to be there and cannot be asked to leave outside of the set time, place, and manner restrictions. The public does not have a right to go into the back because that is restricted to the public, Public property is any property that is owned by the government. But obviously that doesn’t give free rein for anybody to go ANYWHERE on public property. Like the holding cell area of police stations are restricted to the public, so if they get back there to record, the bigger issue is the trespassing rather than the recording. Since they are not allowed back there in general. A really good channel that audits the first amendment as well as trespass laws is Inland Auditing Media. He goes to government facilities like public school corporation transportation buildings, water treatment plants, and stuff like that. But he walks up, he looks for restricted area signage, and if he doesn’t see anything, he keeps walking. He openly walks into the back of treatment plants right next to where they do all the treatment and takes photographs and stuff because where he’s at wasn’t marked off from the public. For an area to be restricted to the public, it is required to be behind a locked door or gate and/or have a clearly visible sign that clearly states that the general public is not allowed in there. For all the areas Inland Auditing Media has gone into where people have told him it’s restricted, he wins every single time because the law is clear about what areas of the public are restricted access and what isn’t. Sorry for the rambling. Public property is property owned by the government, and the back of a post office is restricted to the public by signs and locked doors. That’s the gist of it.
But the Police can turn off, mute, or just flat-out refuse to release body cam footage or release it HEAVILY redacted. Plus, police can, and often do lie in the performance of their job. We, as citizens have for far too long have let the police go unchecked and when they do commit bad actions, they investigate themselves. This is just one way of the citizens watching the watchmen.
There are restricted areas in post offices, and government building's, anywhere that is not restricted is open to the public if your on public property. Just a basic guideline
Who is the real Sov Cit? An auditor exercising his rights? Or the Police and legal system violating clearly written law? Aren't Police supposed to be held to a higher standard? Clearly they are not!
Any open, non staff areas of public locations, streets, sidewalks, libraries, post offices, etcetera You can film, and can record buildings areas you could see from the sidewalk. Some people just record and arent auditors but refuse to turn off their cameras. They do show the good and bad of their interactions, most times. At times, when a FOIA request for body cam footage is requested, some crazy comments are said about the auditor.
Are 1st Amendment auditors heroes or a nuisance?
Re filming in libraries and such. They are not trying to film any particular activity. They are filming to specifically make people “uncomfortable “ (which is not at all illegal) to provoke the police being called. If the police come and inform library staff and patrons that the person is allowed to film they “pass” the audit. If they are asked to stop filming or asked to leave the police have “failed”
Depends on how they go about it
What’s the end goal? If you’re being a provocateur then you’re being a nuisance. You’re not advancing anything… you’re an asshole…
Both, I've been down the rabbit hole and some are just fine. Some filming here and there not doing anything wrong and then if the police show up, film their encounter maintain their rights but are civil about it. Some are jerks that are just trying to provoke the cops, have no idea what they are actually allowed to do and not allowed to do. There is a channel called audit the audit which the owner of the channel watches these interactions and gives context as much as he can and then grades everyone. He is usually pretty fair and is an interesting watch
Some can be an extreme nuisance by just being assholes because they can. They kinda each have their own style
Police mute body cams or refuse to provide footage to the public. Always film any interaction with police.
They also turn the cam off all together.
Filming interactions is one thing but purposely causing problems to film and harass the police is another.
@@robertmagill6005 That is not happening. Totally legal to point a camera at a police officer and they should know this. No possible way to prevent them from making complete asses of themselves. They do that all on their own. Just ignore the camera and walk the fuck away. If they just did that there wouldn't be anymore content. But all of the idiot piece of shit cops just keep pushing.
@@robertmagill6005just filming can't be harassment unless you are getting too close to a person.
You can't force a good cop to be bad....being annoying, being edgy, and being obnoxious is all protected speech
If a black person went into an area after segregation was ended to show they could.
Was that morally wrong and just agitating?
My favorite is the auditor that has the sign “Bless the homeless veterans “. That’s all he says, doesn’t panhandle or enter buildings. He does it on sidewalks, never blocking movement past him, but is harassed all the time by police.
There was another auditor in a police parking asking for a supervisor and the supervisor corrected the officer and gathered other officers and made sure that they understood the law. It was all shown and that was a good reaction.
HonnoryourOath is the name of the channel
God bless Jeff Gray, God bless the Homeless Veterans. ✌️
Yes. He's one of the few that I think does it right.
you don't see the parts where he demands money and blocks people from going into places to get the cops called on him. that is the magic of these vids they can be edited or full context left out.
@@joshuatempleton9556 Jeff Gray (HYO) asks for money, never “demands” it, directly in front of cops, to prove the point that “panhandling”, AKA requesting help, is constitutionally protected. He never blocks any places. You’re completely wrong and maliciously misrepresenting him, with zero evidence.
The library incident with Long Island Audit is being misreported by Legal Eagle. In a follow-up, the police admit they shouldn't have removed him. L.E. also left out the part where one of the cops said that "20 years ago he'd be dead with his teeth missing." And he earned himself an 8 day unpaid vacation.
Oh geez 😬
1st amendment auditors believe that the law needs to be followed by everyone. Sovereign citizens believe that they don’t have to follow any laws they don’t agree with.
Yes you and anyone can just be press
A lot of these videos are people trying to file complaints against officers and wanting to document that process to show the corruption, as the answer to these complaints is usually "we investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong".
I'd say your missing a whole raft of this community if you think most are just people trying to file complaints.
Yeah because 9/10 times they did nothing wrong. These so-called auditors do not understand the laws. Just because you have a camera in your hand doesn't give you special privileges.
You still have to comply with the rules, policies, and regulations of the building.
@@TheLogicalvoice-wj5yp Of course having a camera does not grant you "special privileges", but you still have the SAME privileges as any other person in the U.S. who is protected by the Constitution. The rules, policies and regulations implemented in many buildings, especially public buildings and government service locations, are actually illegal and violate the Constitution (this is not opinion, this has actually already been litigated and established by the Supreme Court) so these auditors are exposing these unlawful policies and trying to educate the public and the building administrators who seem to actually be ignorant of the law and get these policies changed. Their point is that if no one says anything about the erosion of our rights like this, it will become normal and even accepted and we will slowly lose those rights without even realizing it.
@@tsunami-lightwave9395 Wrong. They are not unconstitutional. They are in fact very constitutional. The courts have ruled numerous times that they are constitutional.
See Sheets vs Porta Gunta, See US vs Kokinda. The SCOTUS has never ruled that way. That is a complete 100% myth created by morons that can't read actual court rulings.
That is why these 1st amendment auditors are getting arrested and thrown in jail and getting convicted for trespass, harassment, etc ...
@@TheLogicalvoice-wj5ypCan you actually prove your biased nonsense claim that 9/10 times the police are innocent? Your bias is showing
If you wanna see a great first amendment auditor I highly recommend Long Island audit! Very respectful but still stands up for our rights.
Scammer
@@jeffpatterson7406 You are? Lol
Please use his full title. Convicted felon Sean Reyes of Long Island Audits.
@@dane1056 riiiight. Because the DOJ NEVER gets weaponized and is always fair with no mistakes
If this Long Island audit was actually respectful he wouldn't be doing that auditor shit.
There is no expectation of privacy in public
maybe on a sidewalk. But a privately owned place that is open to the public is another matter.
Yuko you are wrong there a privately owned place can restrict speech which includes filming however even in a privately owned building held open to the public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for anything visible to the public.
@@kylejohns2288 if a privately owned place wants you off their property for filming then you don't have a right to be there. That is the sticking point. While you don't have reasonable expectation of privacy in a place open to the public, you can still be tossed out for what you do. Then certainly arrested and trespassed if you refuse. Not to mention filming things like private information on computers or papers isn't protected.
Once you enter a specific building that changes. Which is why governments like courthouses, DMVs, tax offices, prisons etc ... can have policies rules and restrictions on certain 1st amendment activities. You're right. walking along outside in a city park etc... yeah you don't have an expectation of privacy.
@@TheLogicalvoice-wj5ypper the law gov building can place restrictions based on place and manner. Which is why posted restricted areas are a no go. Also why courtrooms can be restricted but places like the hallways and lobbies of courthouses have been ruled as unrestricted spaces. As far as private information it is up to the personal to ensure that the privacy of information on computers and paperwork is taken care of by making sure it is not in full view of the public. Anything that can be seen can be recorded in public unrestricted spaces per settled law
Long Island audit goes into libraries not to film people but to see the structure itself, you know admiration of architecture, and to see what public services the library might offer
Audit the Audit is one of the best channels to watch these auditors
Indeed, I came across Audit the Audit last winter and have found many of their videos entertaining and informative. They do a good job of examining a lot of these audits and grading those involved. Sometimes it's law enforcement in the wrong, and sometimes it's the auditor(s), and the channel does a good job of analyzing the right and wrong that happens during such interactions.
@@martint.ingham7132it's always the auditor in the wrong. When you go out to harass people and film it to get views you are in the wrong.
@@robertmagill6005You’re confused and biased if you’re using the blanket statement that they’re trying to harass people. Filming in public is not harassment my guy. We’re all filmed hundreds of times in public the minute we leave our house, it’s just a control issue for the people who demand privacy while in public. There are auditors who only film their own traffic stops, with the cops who stopped them and don’t have bodycams
@@Tortilla.Reform they're not trying to harass people that's what they are doing. Save the auditor simp bullshit for people stupid enough to swallow it.
The point of the First Amendment is that speech can't be audited by the state.
*most speech
You are 100% wrong.
@julioguardado You should look up the public forum doctrine. The right to free speech and freedom of the press are not unlimited in all places.
The point of the first amendment was to ensure that nefarious governments couldnt silence journalists from outing them. Had nothing to do with youtubers harassing citizens to make money from youtube.
@@dane1056 Can't harass citizens that do not want to be harassed while filming in public. I see it in all audit videos. Only the idiots that just have to confront the cameraman feel harassed. Majority of the people going by do not care and are not feeling harassed.
Audit the auditors is the best channel for this js
Lackluster
@@singerkgreenLackluster is false narrative trash.
He is not. He sides with cops, and quotes cases that has been overturned.
Agree to disagree
Long Island audits is pretty good too if you want more of a first person pov rather than someone analyzing an interaction
When auditors go to the post office there's a poster on the wall (USPS Poster 7) that states that filming is allowed in public accessible areas for news media purposes. Many times they will call the police anyway only to find that the post office is Federal jurisdiction and the postal inspector shows up to calm everyone down.
Poster 7 also states authorised personal can refuse that.
@@dane1056and the only “authorized personnel” is the post master general of the United States
@@jdcrypto2242 And like everything auditors and their supporters do, they create their own interpretation. If it truly is only the Post Master then why would they leave it vague by putting "authorized personnel". Why create the confusion when you could write Post Master General? Were they worried they were going to run out of ink by writing the extra couple letters that it would have taken? Authorized personnel are the office managers that run the building at the time. Theres a reason why auditors dont try and make real change and stick to harassing office workers and customers and then "leave under threat of arrest". If its truly as clear cut as they all pretend they could certainly file large lawsuits everytime which would force the hand of the higher ups to make things crystal clear to everyone involved.
@@dane1056 it’s also a law. What sense would it be to make a law that any employee can override lmao
@@jdcrypto2242 what exactly are they overriding when it's in own their poster 7 and what use is there putting up a policy that is unlawful and if it is unlawful a lawsuit will easily rectify that. There have been 100s if not more audits within the post office. If a fraction of those push for a lawsuit then thats easily 10s of millions to pay out and those "unlawful" policies would be removed immediately.
1st Amendment auditing is NOT like Sov Cit. Its kinda the opposite, holding police to the laws they are sworn to uphold.
As a rule of thumb, you can record in any place that you're permitted to be. You can record in any publicly accessible areas as long as you can see inside them . For your police tape example, you can stand against the tape, and record anything that you can see from outside of the tape.
I apologize, I have a lot of thoughts, so I’m just going to answer questions you ask in individual comments as they come up.
The point of going to post offices and libraries is that they are public places. Auditors will also go to city halls and police departments and department of corrections and DMVs/BMVs, etc…
You mentioned not being allowed to film people in places like Japan, well a large reason auditors go to these places is to exercise their right to film because people genuinely think America has laws that prevents recording in public. So what they auditors do is go in public and film specifically to educate people that they CAN film. And the reason they do this is because city halls will often post signs saying people can’t film. So if they have a bad interaction or they feel like they’re being treated unfairly, they have no way to document the issue. So auditors go to these places to exercise their rights with the idea being, if you don’t exercise your rights, eventually you will lose those rights. It’s not that they feel like they are already losing them as much as they are preemptively keeping those rights relevant so they don’t get forgotten or stomped on. Every time an auditor goes into a library, they’re told that they can’t record. And that, in and of itself, is a problem. We have the right to record in public. Just imagine being at a library with your kids, and your daughter is reading a book and you want to film her for memories, but you get harassed by the employees about not recording. What if you go in and they refuse to let you see the books because of the way you look or the color of your skin. How do you document that injustice? So, it’s important that citizens and public servants understand that people are allowed to record in public because there are an infinite number of reasons why someone might WANT to record in a library or post office. So auditors are just making sure people know that we CAN
Auditors rely on the Constitution as the authority or basis for their actions. My understanding is that Sovereign citizens could care less about the Constitution or case law stemming from it. Audits vary greatly depending on the attitude of the auditor. Some can get pretty aggressive, other auditors keep things as calm as possible so as not to provoke a violent reaction.
The cops/judges are the true sovereign citizens of the USA.
Legal Eagle is the butt of jokes in the RUclips lawyer community.
Absolutely, completely just a political activist, not a lawyer worth any salt.
Coming at you from Japan here (long time resident). Interestingly, people seriously overestimate the law here because of how the internet tends to blow up a couple stories and leave the details in the dust. A lot of things people think are laws here are actually just "suggestions" that people follow just because they were asked to by the government.
A good example is how people think that cameras here have to have a shutter sound by law. It's not actually a law - it's just a government recommendation. Because the government recommends it, every company includes the feature. You can legally download an app that lets you use your camera without the sound and you won't get in trouble.
You don't have to blur anyone's face in public, either. Some people have sued for violating their privacy, but such cases almost never happen and, even when they do, it's probably not going to go anywhere unless the person was intentionally and obviously targeting that one person.
The real, on-the-books laws here regarding most things are actually extremely similar to laws in the US (makes sense since the US was the ones who wrote most of those laws circa 1945 and they haven't change much since). The one big difference here is you aren't even going to get that officer in your face in the first place here because most local police have (I shit you not) actual policies to not get involved in anything unless it's clearly criminal activity (and they've been documented on video (no blur) actually ignoring criminal activity in some specific cases in Tokyo).
For all their faults though, police here are generally just WAY more interested in helping people than putting them in jail or fining them for going 2mph over the speed limit. I was walking on a cane one day going to work when there was a ton of snow out. A police officer literally jogged up to me risking slipping on the ice to offer me a ride. He took me to work in his personal car (he was parked nearby and he wouldn't want to put me in a squad car to take me to work). There was no reason for him to do that. Note that this was in a rural town, though. They're not going to be nearly that nice in a tourist city like Tokyo or Kyoto. Most of Japan's officers are incredible. Go to the city and they suddenly get fairly American again. They still aren't going to harass people for not doing anything illegal, though (unless you're black, in which case, all bets are off - trust me here; I know people).
Just because cops have body cams does not mean they are transparent. Ever notice when something happens and it puts the police in a good light the footage gets released within hours. But when they do something wrong it can take months or years or they simply say the footage was lost or the cam was not recording.
There are no rights, only temporary privileges. One auditor went to a police station to film and not only was he allowed to film but invited into the police chief's office and they had a long conversation about general things and the chief was super cool. It was uploaded.
And then there's some like riot radio grrrl that was in tears in her car because she spent the whole day going to different places and on one bothered her😂
What I love about the US Constitution, is specifically the 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. They aren't just our civilian rights, those were written to limit/restrict government authority.
And also, Sean (Long Island Audit) has been hired by various county sherriff's office around the country to teach classes on activism and constitutional rights.
Someone walking with a camera isn’t weird. A camera isn’t drama
Most issues arise due to the extra stuff that happens. Rather than just walking with the camera.
@dane1056 issues they don't start. If they're yelling at people to start an incident that's one thing but I've seen lots of videos where police violated rights and their own words "we got reports of a guy walking around with a camera"
@@tomraineofmagigor3499 and I've seen tonnes where they are left to their own devices with no-one bothering them so they escalate until they get the reaction they want. Bang on windows to make sure they get attention, pick out people that look irritable and concentrate on them, follow people around. wait till someone walks towards the parking lot then run up to cars and film making it obvious that they are filming the license plates and so on, zoom in on computer screens, pretending they have a gun behind their back in front of cops, filming at schools because they know that's more likely to get people anxious about some strange man who's covering his face with kids around. It's all designed to play on peoples fears and all just to make money on RUclips.
@@dane1056 Wow... I don't know what videos you have watched but I have never seen anyone hitting on windows. I have seen them point the camera in the window but not hit it.
@@thomascarter2922 there have been several where they don't realize they are being filmed and one guy took a pee on a building and another threw rocks at people etc.
Sovereign citizens tend to think the laws don't apply to them.
Auditors go out to see if the law actually is applied.
There is little of interest to film in a post office or library except that it's legal to do so. And so often staff and police will act way out of line in response to this filming.
@jaywinner328 Where it is legal to film inside libraries, they can have a no filming policy and enforce the policy by trespassing anyone who refuses to comply.
Unlike most public places, libraries are limited public forums, which means they can put reasonable limitations on our First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court established three different types of public forums in Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983): traditional, limited and nonpublic.
Limited and nonpublic fourms can reasonably limits our First Amendment rights. This has passed the scrutiny the courts and have found to be Constitutional.
Typically, nonpublic forums are established inside Courthouses, Schools, Universities, and Libraries, but can also be applied to other public places.
In Kreimer v. Board of Police of Morristown, NJ, an important court opinion addressing a library user’s right to enter and use the library, the court held that because public libraries are a limited public forum, constitutional protection is afforded only to those expressive activities that are consistent with the mission and purpose of the library. A public library is only obligated to permit the public to exercise rights that are consistent with the government’s intent in establishing the library as a limited public forum for the purpose of receiving information and accessing the library’s books, programs, and online resources. According to the Kreimer opinion, other activities, including activities such as photography, filming, petition-gathering, assemblies, and public speeches, may be regulated by the library using reasonable, viewpoint neutral, time, place, and manner rules.
Brown v. Louisiana, (1966). A library is "a place dedicated to quiet, to knowledge, and to beauty." Its very purpose is to aid in the acquisition of knowledge through reading, writing and quiet contemplation. Thus, the exercise of other oral and interactive First Amendment activities is antithetical to the nature of the Library. These arguably conflicting characteristics, at least in a First Amendment sense, support our conclusion that the Library constitutes a limited public forum, a sub-category of designated public fora.21 See Brody v. Spang, at 1118. We thus adopt the reasoning of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School District, 927 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1991), where the court held that a limited public forum "is created when government opens a nonpublic forum but limits the expressive activity to certain kinds of speakers or to the discussion of certain subjects.... In the case of a limited public forum, constitutional protection is afforded only to expressive activity of a genre similar to those that government has admitted to the limited forum." Id. at 692 (emphasis supplied).22 Hence, as a limited public forum, the Library is obligated only to permit the public to exercise rights that are consistent with the nature of the Library and consistent with the government's intent in designating the Library as a public forum.23 Other activities need not be tolerated.
Many auditors think there are no limitations to our rights and that they are absolute, this is not the case filming can be limited by Time, Place, and Manner, for example, you are allowed to record on a sidewalk but if you try filming up women's skirts the manner of filming is trying to invade the privacy rights of another, so it falls into an illegal recording.
So, where it is not illegal to film in public or even inside a nonpublic forums there are places that filming is illegal like inside restrooms or locker rooms or tanning room or changing rooms because those places people can reasonably expect privacy.
@@urgreatestenemy3044 I'm not sure that no recording would be considered a reasonable limit for a library. A protest that would be legal on a sidewalk might not be in a library because it would disrupt the intended use of the library, recording during business hours does not.
@jaywinner328 Libraries have policies that the American Library Association (ALA) has put in place and a libraries Bill of Rights, this the the ALA'S position on privacy.
"Privacy is essential to free inquiry in the library because it enables library users to select, access, and consider information and ideas without fear of embarrassment, judgment, punishment, or ostracism. A lack of privacy in what one reads and views in the library can have a significant chilling effect upon library users’ willingness to exercise their First Amendment right to read, thereby impairing free access to ideas. True liberty of choice in the library requires both a varied selection of materials and the assurance that one's choices are not monitored.
The possibility of surveillance, whether direct or through access to records of speech, research and exploration, undermines a democratic society. One cannot exercise the right to read if the possible consequences include damage to one's reputation, ostracism from the community or workplace, or criminal penalties. Choice requires both a varied selection and the assurance that one's choice is not monitored. For libraries to flourish as centers for uninhibited access to information, librarians must stand behind their users' right to privacy and freedom of inquiry."
Some people feel that allowing recording from outside sources could be a problem for some library users and restricting the right to film is reasonable. Transparency for the government is good, but it could come with a cost of having no privacy in what people choose to read or check out.
There are also other concerns like libraries are the only places that store old newspapers' negatives a reporter doing an investigation wouldn't want people recording and live streaming what they are looking at as it could tip others off to their story.
People also bring their intellectual property into Libraries to do research and work on new ideas, it is a privacy concern if people record their papers as their ideas could be stolen or their papers could be plagiarized by others.
@@urgreatestenemy3044 That's still policy which laws and the constitution would supersede. And based on their own policies, this seems to be about records, not about being physically seen in a library.
4. If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, how can anyone expect privacy in a library?
A library cannot be responsible for someone being seen or recognized in a library but should take steps to protect user privacy whenever possible. That is, in a library, a user’s face may be recognized, but that does not mean that the subject of the user’s interest must also be known.
Remember in the library clip legal eagle shows the video I watched actually showed one of those officers admitting that if recording wasn't as big as thing he could have made the guy disappear or something like that. I remember how he phrased it but it was very much a threat to either have them falsely inprisoned or murdered. You may have been exaggerating but it was deeply concerning that he didn't sound like he would even be questioned for it.
Mr Terry needs a serious education on these topics
I think it's funny that when LegalEagle talks about long island audits who is one of the most polite auditors. He says that he relishes in confrontational tactics, which I disagree with but in the video he shows one of the cops say on body cam to is fellow officers 20 years ago this guy would be found dead with his teeth missing.
In terms of less orthodox locations like post offices and libraries, I'd say that there are three, maybe four major goals: highlighting misconduct from specific government employees and offices, exposing a systemic lack of training regarding citizens' rights, exercising the right to public filming so that it isn't gradually eroded, and normalizing the practice of public filming to the general public.
Oftentimes, more popular auditors will receive tips about incompetent, corrupt, or otherwise unbecoming conduct from public employees in various positions. In that context, they're conducting a larger investigation in which the first amendment audit can act as a sort of litmus test for general tyranny levels, bringing much larger attention to corruption problems in otherwise isolated communities. Occasionally the initial coverage directly causes resignations or retraining, whereas in other cases it greatly boosts the efforts of local citizens who continue to fight for change, and inspires others to start fighting against small-town corruption in the first place.
As far as exposing a systemic lack of training, post offices are federally required to allow photography in entrances and lobbies, as part of a 2016 set of rules and regulations that must also be conspicuously posted on the property. Nevertheless, many such locations fail to respect these rules that are usually posted right inside their front entrances.
Furthermore, many states have laws regarding open records requests that require various public offices to accept records requests in a certain manner, which many public employees often fail to do despite that literally being illegal.
Then there's the matter of simply regularly exercising the right to film in public in order to normalize the practice, precisely so we don't end up like a country like Japan. Many random citizens are apparently largely misinformed about privacy rights, often getting unreasonably aggressive over filming in public areas that they happen to pass by.
More important however is normalizing filming our interactions at government offices, so that random citizens who want incontrovertible records of their tribulations have some defense against corruption and institutional incompetence.
The auditor reasons are that its established that post offices have rules that allow photography in the lobby.
Libraries are a grey area legally but banning someone from a library because if filming is very subjective.
Princess Diana fatal accident was in Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris, France. Not England
In post offices there is a poster (poster 7) that states the rules and regulations for conduct within the post office. And it specifically states that all photography is allowed for news purposes except where prohibited. The freedom of press allows any citizen to be a member of the press, there isn't a license there aren't any credentials, you just have gather and disseminate info. Press passes are only issued in private venues. As long as you are in public you can be recorded the 2 party consent only governs private conversations in private venues
Please describe the crime of "Weird" is it a felony?
First amendment auditors make way more money from RUclips than lawsuits. Any money won from a lawsuit is offset by attorney fees.
21:04 Since she died in Paris, primarily it would be French rules to follow here.
But that the point you don't need ask permission to film in public! You don't need permission to no any constitutional rights! It's more if the public and the government officials know what other people are constitutional rights! Even limited public forums and time place and manner restrictions have to fallow the law! Filming falls under 2 different constitutional rights, gathering news and addressing the government! If you want to, you can be in a public space recording the government work all day!
I'd highly suggest watching Honor Your Oath, Long Island Audit, Audit the Audit, and Lackluster. Even if you don't do it for a video, they will give you a better idea of what good auditors are doing.
I know for a fact one of those is a lying pos. His channel is known for lying about what actually happens. The others you can probably accept as true, but I know this particular one lies all time. I will not call out his channel by name, but it sounds like something doesn't shine. It is missing it's...
Its not about suing for money, it is about reinforcing people's rights. Cops don't listen to citizens, with a few exceptions. Cops HAVE to listen to courts.
Funny how uncomfortable people are about being filmed when most pubilc areas have cameras with many different angles.
Those are actually there for peoples safety, auditors are there to harass and abuse the first amendment for views. Nothing funny about it.
I watch these guys a lot. It illustrates how many in law enforcement, as with any profession, are poorly informed & primarily interested in asserting their power. Again this is a human trait not a swipe at public servants, but it is a lot of power for an individual which demands powerful oversight and institutions. Frequently a Sergeant is called to the scene who straightens out the under informed deputies.
The problem is, frauditors are also poorly informed. For example, how they don't seem to recognize the Public Forum Doctrine as set down by the Supreme Court
And many times, the supervisor’s are as ignorant as their subordinates.
@@POETCERA the ignorant people in these so called "audits" are the frauditors themselves, not the police
@@chemquests the ones with the problem regarding being misinformed are the frauditors. They go off of feelings or some strange, anarchist logic, not laws
Too many of them are convicted felons who are just out to antagonize people for RUclips fame and money. Ironton Copwatch is a good one but gets very little views. The drama is what gets the views so more and more of these people realise they have to push the limit to make money.
They go to the post office and library because those are the easiest settings to make individuals uncomfortable provoke an interaction. They do not post videos of positive interactions because that content does not get clicks/ad revenue. Also what they will do is go through any door that isn't locked or marked as no entry as a fast track to an altercation.
The auditors don't go in areas marked authorized only. They stay in the public lobbys, cops are called and auditors are usually thrown out or arrested.
Filming in the library, Post Office, etc is important because it normalizes recording of our public servants in the course of their duty--our legal right--which will make it easier for normal folks to record when they have an actual gripe with the government agency and they need the evidence to support a complaint.
You are right Terry. It helps when people record. It uncovers crimes and corruption.
2 of the best that have fewer subscribers:
Audit Them works mostly around Illinois, and concentrates on enforcing FOIA law compliance. IAM Free works mostly in the Pacific Northwest, and holds a lot of government agencies accountable based on “tips/leads” of certain agencies not working correctly. ✌️
Love IAM Free's channel. Been following his since a couple weeks after he created his page.
I have already seen videos where, for example, the policeman said why are we getting all these crazy people and took the camera and deleted the video And that she was later asked by the lawyer of the person whose video he deleted why he did it Can you, I wasn't that, it was the judge and the lawyer then asked why should the judge please delete the video I have no idea whether it is with the judge And in the bodycam recordings of his colleague you could see exactly how he took the camera and then deleted it
No protection for being filmed in public you dont have an expectation of privacy in public
So you can film over a stall in a public toilet?
@@dane1056 toilets have the reasonable expectation of privacy as they are not really public, at least in the stall itself.
@@HomesteadDNA then every peanut that broadly claims that there's no expectation in in public needs to change their mantra because there clearly is. These same morons will film over office walls, zoom in on stuff, shove their cameras up against reflective glass. All things that have been put in place to create a later of privacy. So what is it. Sounds like people like yourself pick and choose to suit your agenda.
My first reaction to Sovereign Citizens: ruclips.net/video/TEfzBWqWXQM/видео.html
You do know these arent Sovereign Citizens, right? I mean, if you only watch Legal Eagle you dont know much about anything, but I assume you know more than that.
police will try to use "Interference" to stop you from recording, but don't let that fool you. by law "Interference" is a physical act, putting yourself between the officer and stop, or using some type of violent / fighting language. just recording in a public place can not be deemed "Interference" as long as your a reasonable distance (10-20 feet) from the stop or event you are recording.
@@dmyz5343 where does it say interference is only a physical act, exactly?
@@moonshade6864 it would be in the text of the individual State's statutes. Not all of them require physical violence, a physical act, or the threat of one, but the vast majority do. Look up your own State's "Interference" laws to check.
For example, in my state of Kentucky:
KRS 519.020 Obstructing Governmental Operations
(1) A person is guilty of obstruction Governmental Operations when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or hinders the performance of a governmental function by using or threatening to use physical violence, force, or physical interference
There are additional details in the KRS, but they are for specific circumstances.
What they're filming in places like libraries and post offices is usually the walls and artwork and pamphlets. They aren't there for that, rather they are there to see if the officials and police respect the right. Those are public places open to the public, where filming is legal, yet officials often try to criminalize it anyway.
@@Robertz1986 except filming there is not legal thanks to the US Supreme Court. Look up Public Forum Doctrine
@moonshade6864 Both traditional public forums and limited public forums are open to filming. Only non-public forums are consistently not open to filming. Government buildings where the public is allowed to go are limited public forums, and filming is allowed unless legally prohibited by statute or court order, generally speaking.
Federal law actually enshrines the right to record in lobbies, hallways, foyers, and auditoriums into federal statute, including in Post Offices.
Government lobbies are limited public forums, not non-public forums, which is what confuses many people.
@@Robertz1986 you may want to recheck that statement because courts have consistently found public property to be a nonpublic forum where the evidence shows that the property’s purpose is to conduct or facilitate government business, and not to provide a forum for public expression. Examples of spaces courts have held to be nonpublic forums include the offices of government employees, the interior of polling places, the mailboxes of public school teachers, lobby areas of government buildings, terminals in publicly operated airports, and military bases
@@moonshade6864 And to explain to you, filming is NOT EXPRESSION. There, you can now go back and revisit where you're wrong.
@@HomesteadDNA it doesn't really matter if it is a form of expression or not. Point to me where it makes that distinction within the wording for the Public Forum Doctrine
the courts have ruled that if you can see something from public spaces you can film it
and alot f 1A's use this to test if cops will try to kick them way from the area because a cop is supposed to know the laws they are enforcing
i have seen videos where a 1A is on a public sidewalk filming a business as the workers in the business try to get cops to remove the 1A but the cops say that they cant
i have also seen the opposite and these are the ones they are trying to find and fix
Filming police is just like filming a defiant and troublesome child, neither is going to change because they are not accountable for their actions.
I’ve even caught prison guards sleeping on the job and took photos and sent it to their bosses. Then they tried to retaliate against me an independent contractor. I have far more experience than you in this field and one of my guards was even on my side exposing the corruption and ostracizing guards.
For a History teacher, you seem very unaware of your Constitution Rights. As such, are you doing justice to the students you teach? Do you understand when you must show I.D. to police???
I mean they can be annoying, but I say it's necessary. There clearly needs to be some supervision becuase they just keep finding "No wrong doing"
Frauditors go beyond annoying. Three have been convicted of sexual misconduct on a minor/ sexual assault on a minor, 5 or 6 of them have domestic abuse convictions and another handful have assault charges. On top of that, one has recently recorded himself shooting a homeless person.
Many of them have stopped recording in government, non- public forum buildings and have started recording privately owned businesses with LIA recording himself harassing and bullying an autistic man
Supervision fine. Interfering in people go about doing their duties, not fine.
@@dane1056sure but where is the line? Some would say the guy who filmed the Rodney King shooting and the Derek Chauvin Un aliving were interference. Obstruction laws are commonly referred to as contempt of cop laws because of how often they are used to quell free speech. The courts have discussed and drawn all these lines but the system is set up in a way that when police over reach, your tax dollars pay and nothing happens to them. Does that seem like a system that would encourage police to be careful or care at all even about your rights?
"Auditors" purposely force interactions by harassing police and filming where they legally have no right
Chauvin wasn't responsible for Floyd's death and auditors are just harassing people for views. The first amendment doesn't protect harassment and it is an abuse of the first amendment.
Putting it as simple as possible... auditors film. Cops hate, hate, hate being filmed. You might be surprised how many cops still believe it is still a stop and ID world.
they do post when cops do the right thing!
Which is the majority of the time, but frauditors are too entitled or stupid to realize it
That's a lie and you know it. They only post what gets them views and that's them creating bad situations. It's why they aren't real journalists like they claim. Real journalists don't make themselves part of the story.
"Most" do... :)
@@moonshade6864. “Frauditor” is a nonsense word. It’s meant to be a clever portmanteau, but the “fraud” part of the word is a lie. No fraud is involved.
[16:51] The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the 1A makes no legally meaningful distinction between regular people and institutional media. If institutional media have any greater or lesser set of legal rights or protections, it's because of statute, and not by the 1A (for example, some states protect institutional media from having to reveal their sources when testifying in court).
“can anyone claim that they are press” it’s not freedom if you have to ask permission
Watch long island audits. Sean is probably the top tier auditor out there. Some precincts have him come talk to cops about first, fourth and fifth amendments. He is also arrested many times for filming cops from public areas.
Courts have ruled you can curse at police and flip them off
that is brought up in the video.
The point of auditors is the fact that even though courts have ruled that, police officers will still harass and arrest people/bully them into ID despite no crime/ turn the middle finger into a crime like “disturbing the peace” 🙄
That's freedom of speech protected by the 1st Amendment.
@@bakedjesus1177 and the US Supreme Court has stated that Government facilities have the right to regulate and even restrict 1st Amendment activities
@@moonshade6864 with limitations which is why cities are losing lawsuits left and right. And having to settle
And they have to spend that money on bail, lawyers, ect for unlawful arrests
And some don't ask for money, or much, or will ask for non monetary items. Honor Your Oath, for instance, just won 3 lawsuits in Georgia. He got $1791, which I think went to charity, the ordinance removed, and a promise of officer training. Or at least I remember that being what he typically asks.
Auditor's may be a nuisance from time to time, but whom else will keep these rude, entitled public worker's in order? We have all been there where the lady at the counter is just rude as hell, it's time someone put the behavior out in the open!! These patriots are needed!!
@@DedmanReactin so you want rude, entitled anarchists to do that job?
@@moonshade6864 if need be
Post office and libraries are publicly funded buildings and they do tend to call police on people for recording
And they are wrong to do so.
@bakedjesus1177 Where libraries are public buildings, they are limited public forums.
The Supreme Court established three different types of public forums in Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983): traditional, limited and nonpublic.
In limited and nonpublic fourms our First Amendment rights can be limited this includes freedom of press this has passed the scrutiny of our courts and have been found to be Constitutional.
This is the reason why libraries can have a no filming policy and they can enforce the policy by trespassing anyone who fails to obey the policy's inside the building.
Where there are no state statutes that make filming in libraries illegal they can enforce policies, take the no shoes, no shirt, no service, policy where there is no law that says a person has to wear shoes but it is a health code violation and not obeying the policy can get a person trespassed from the property.
Many auditors take advantage of the fact that not many people know case laws, and many staff and police don't know the public forum doctrine or how it is applied to certain public buildings.
@@urgreatestenemy3044 i personally looked up case law on libraries how ever example of public schools you can protest ect which schools can limit such things as to not disrupt classes how ever you are allowed in parking lots as well as main offices in public schools. As for post offices their policies for news or press they are alowed to come in and film the public areas it litterally says it on posters in pretty much every post offices. Which states "photography for news purposes may be taken in entrances lobbies foyers corridors or auditoriums" i would add on schools public meetings or your personal meetings with staff can be recorded. How ever even in rullings of limited public forum the right of filming or photography can only limited if it interferes with its functions or operations. There for they cant just out and ban filming you would have to be filming in a way the obstructs the operations and functions of the facility and just walking around quietly filming would not apply in this case.
@@urgreatestenemy3044 i would also add supreme court has yet to rule on this so they could end up rulling ither way on this
@bakedjesus1177 As the law stands today filming can be regulated by limited public forums not all public buildings can call themselves a limited public forum.
Long Island Audit sued NYC police departments and challenged their no filming policy, the court agreed that it wasn't in the public interest to limit the right to film inside police station lobby's and making a police station a limited public forum could have a deparmential effect in the government controlling freedom of speech against people who are facing criminal charges.
Libraries have policies that the American Library Association (ALA) have put in place and a libraries Bill of Rights, this the the ALA'S position on privacy.
"Privacy is essential to free inquiry in the library because it enables library users to select, access, and consider information and ideas without fear of embarrassment, judgment, punishment, or ostracism. A lack of privacy in what one reads and views in the library can have a significant chilling effect upon library users’ willingness to exercise their First Amendment right to read, thereby impairing free access to ideas. True liberty of choice in the library requires both a varied selection of materials and the assurance that one's choices are not monitored.
The possibility of surveillance, whether direct or through access to records of speech, research and exploration, undermines a democratic society. One cannot exercise the right to read if the possible consequences include damage to one's reputation, ostracism from the community or workplace, or criminal penalties. Choice requires both a varied selection and the assurance that one's choice is not monitored. For libraries to flourish as centers for uninhibited access to information, librarians must stand behind their users' right to privacy and freedom of inquiry."
So you can see that to some people maintaining some privacy in a library serves the public interest as people have a right to read without worrying that what they read will be put on the internet for all to see.
Problem with bodycams, is the police LOVE to delete, loose, and delay any FOIA requests for those recordings.
Auditing is not just about the cops respecting our rights, but ALL government employees, including postal workers, library staff, city clerks, DMV, ect. They do not have authority over you if you're not breaking the law. Its all about transparency and accountability.
If you want to do a deep dive into this stuff, I HIGHLY recommend a channel called Audit The Audit. He takes footage of police encounters - sometimes from 1st Amendment auditors, sometimes not - and discuss the legal issues raised by the encounter, and then finally assign a letter grade to each party based on a combination of whether or not they're correct legally and how they conducted themselves. It's been deeply educational to me, and I appreciate how he picks videos on both sides - sometimes the cops get it wrong, but sometimes the cops get it right.
The point of filming in a library or post office is not because there’s anything going on to infringe on people’s rights, the point is to show that people are unaware of their rights and are allowed to film in any public place even in a library or post office
Princess Dianna died in Paris, not England
My husband just had 3 of these auditors come into his office building. He doesn’t work for the police. Just for the state. These guys ignored employees trying to get their attention. One of the guys just walked up to a meeting room and filmed the meeting through the window, declared the entire first floor the lobby, told the employees to read the constitution for dummies while stating they didn’t have to give their name because of the 4th Amendment 😐
They 100% ignored rules and regulations of the business, refused to speak to the employees. I have found a lot of these people are just trying to prove they’re smarter than everyone else. And create drama for content ☹️
@10:15. The point if post office audits is that despite the fact that every post office has rules on the wall that says people can film inside (poster 7) many of these government buildings will still call police, and police will still either arrest, trespass, etc. It’s a test of what the police know when called, how they treat citizens, and whether or not they care to read the rules on the wall permitting the “unusual” activity
Public property for filming purposes is areas open to the public, not restricted areas. Lobbies, hallways, and foyers and any place open to the public is generally public.
Free speech does not require the speech to be non confrontational. They do post good interactions.
The library and the post office are both public spaces and staffed by public employees.
Filming in public spaces like libraries isnt about catching a crime. Its an easily accessible spot that you can film and will likely make people uncomfortable and therefore get the cops called on them. Its reverse entrapment.
Right, and the point is people shouldnt be uncomfortable with people doing things they are allowed to do. Like, there was a time, and still may be... where a black man might make the patrons of a library uncomfortable.. You would say its the black mans fault for being someone who is "out of the ordinary" and he is "causing the people to be uncomfortable".. this is where you are wrong.
@HomesteadDNA "people shouldn't feel uncomfortable when people do things they are allowed to do" yea, no. That's not the point of it at all. The point is strictly to antagonize and get the cops called on them.
People are allowed to open carry, yet doing so makes others uncomfortable because it increases the risk to their lives. In the case with auditors, it's a sense of invasion of privacy and anonymity.
There is nothing about the auditors that is saying "you should be comfortable while I film you in public", it's 100% barely legal public nuisance
At the USPS office, it's federal property and they have the rules on poster 7 that specifically lays out that you are allowed to film in public areas.
You can't go in the back, opening doors etc, but if you can see it from public, you can film it. Yes, ANYONE can be press... there is no agency that limits that with "credentials". If you are recording and say you are press, you are press. If you are 30 feet away from a traffic stop, you should be fine. Police like to shove people back blocks or claim you can't record. Supreme court disagrees.
I’m a 3rd amendment auditor, I go to military bases in a short skirt and see if I can trick services members into forcing themselves to be quartered in my home. (They just kick my ass)
If exercising a right causes police to violate those rights, it is not the auditors fault. It is the fact that the police have no respect for those rights, who do not care about lawsuits as the taxpayers pay for their dishonorable behavior. I expect government agents to honor their oath, not spit on it just because there is no accountability.
As long as you are not breaking a law, you are allowed to film in ANY public building. (poster 7)
The eyes can't be trespassed.
While standing on public property, simply recording can not be considered a crime.
"Suspicious activity" is not a crime.
Privacy must be created by the individual while in a public setting.
"Obstruction of a police officer" etc etc etc must be physical act, speech is never obstruction.
Everyone can be "The Press". No entity issues "press credentials" ...that would simply be a media company ID.
The typical touchstone threshold for whether or not one can record another is whether the person being recorded is in a place where there's an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. Outside of such areas (e.g. restrooms, locker rooms, retail dressing rooms for trying on clothes) there's generally no such reasonable expectation. Think of it this way: if someone could put a CCTV/security camera in that area and pretty much no one would bat an eye, then there's no such reasonable expectation of privacy. By a public places, they mean anywhere where an individual can be reasonably inferred to have been invited to be present (shopping centers, stores, parking lots, sidewalks or other rights of way, plazas, building interiors where access is not restricted, etc.). For any public space that is privately owned and operated, the proprietor can ask one to stop filming or leave. But where any place is owned by the government or is operated by them (such as publicly leased private property), they have to treat it as a public place until they've taken clear efforts generally to keep people out (fences, locked doors, prohibited access with clearly visible signage, etc.).
The point in going to places like libraries and Post Offices is that those are publicly funded, and in the case of the Post Office specifically, government buildings. The Post Office even has in its rules and regulations information denoting the fact that public photography is legal in the publicly accessible areas. For more information, look up Post Office poster 7.
all government property is public property, not all public property is publicly accessible
You don't need consent from people to film them in public, as you have NO expectation of privacy in public
No auditors cannot go into a crome scene, just like a member of the public couldn't.
You can record anything your eyes can see from a public place except bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. where there is areasonable expectation of privacy. If the mail cam be seen from a public place it can be filmed. It's not up to the videographer to protect that information. We're all the press! Time, place and manner is the standard.
Such a deep dive. This narrator is wrong about Sean, long isle audit. He is extremely polite. When cops respect rights, he praises them. This narrator misrepresented Sean. It's not about filming libraries and post offices. It about seeing how public employees react to legal public filming. Many say, if you don't excersize your rights, you lose them. Many civillians don't know their rights and cops take advantage through intimidation. The auditors want to make sure cops know our rights, yet the evidence proves cops do not know we have rights. Cops believe they are the absolute authority on the street. Auditors have proven this.
Some audits actually say if departments are good with dealing with the public and some want to just get clicks,so you don't know until you deal with them to see how they are.
The princess Diana thing, they could have been done for harrasing, driving citations, not for photography or press activity itself ... See paparazzis in general and remember auditors are angels compared to them.
The reason for the post office and libraries is to show that we have the freedom to communicate. And shows that some think they can take control of your rights. Imagine you go to post office sending mail to ex-wife or other legal needs. Can they refuse to take it? Or just throw it out? Their are people who are without morals
If you make a public records request for police bodycam footage you will be charged upwards of $1000 for the public record. Recording for yourself is free
One of the interesting things that happen when auditors show cops doing the right thing, is that those officers sometimes end up getting fired, or reassigned to a shitty detail in retaliation for not backing up the other ones who were doing the wrong thing.
Should do some of Long Island Audit, on going fight with NYPD but many PD’s actively recruit him for training because the PD’s that violate are in armed rebellion against the Constitution.
I don't watch any 1st Amendment auditors personally but I watch a channel called 'Audit the Audit' who reacts to their content. Moving onto why Post offices or libraries are used, my understanding is that because they are public buildings the auditors have the ability to record unhindered in most cases as the constitution is supposed to protect you against the government. A private business would have the ability to ask someone to no record or to outright leave because of their right to refuse service. Town halls, police stations and really any public entity are used while they Audit. This is all just my understanding but I've never looked into the matter in depth.
Officer's have fewer rights to film than the public. As the police covertly recording is covert surveillance, whereas if there's no expectation of pracy in public the restrictions on the public are very limited.
go watch Honor your oath. Jeff is a real OG in the First Amendment auditing game. He's fair and shows the good along with the bad and he has an easy demeanor while he does his thing. Over the last few years his thing has been fighting against anti panhandling laws. He stands on sidewalks or the steps pf city hall with a handwritten sign that says "God Bless the Homeless Vets". He has been arrested quite a bit for holding a sign. People in this country are very eager to punish anything that is out of the ordinary or undesirable. That's why First amendment auditing has become such a big deal. Another one to check out would be Travis Heinze. He doesn't audit anything. All he does is live his life but the police will not leave him alone because he chooses to live in his car. I would go out on a limb and say that Travis is the most persecuted man in America all for simply existing in the way he wants to live (which isn't illegal or immoral).
16:22 Ok, so the difference between the lobby of a post office and the back is that the back is restricted to all citizens. The point of filming is that anywhere the public is allowed to be, people are allowed to film. The Supreme Court has ruled that a camera is no different than our eyes in that it can see anything it looks at. And because you can’t restrict people from LOOKING at something in public, you also can’t restrict them from RECORDING in public.
The lobby of a post office is accessible to the public, the public has a right to be there and cannot be asked to leave outside of the set time, place, and manner restrictions. The public does not have a right to go into the back because that is restricted to the public,
Public property is any property that is owned by the government. But obviously that doesn’t give free rein for anybody to go ANYWHERE on public property. Like the holding cell area of police stations are restricted to the public, so if they get back there to record, the bigger issue is the trespassing rather than the recording. Since they are not allowed back there in general.
A really good channel that audits the first amendment as well as trespass laws is Inland Auditing Media. He goes to government facilities like public school corporation transportation buildings, water treatment plants, and stuff like that. But he walks up, he looks for restricted area signage, and if he doesn’t see anything, he keeps walking. He openly walks into the back of treatment plants right next to where they do all the treatment and takes photographs and stuff because where he’s at wasn’t marked off from the public. For an area to be restricted to the public, it is required to be behind a locked door or gate and/or have a clearly visible sign that clearly states that the general public is not allowed in there.
For all the areas Inland Auditing Media has gone into where people have told him it’s restricted, he wins every single time because the law is clear about what areas of the public are restricted access and what isn’t.
Sorry for the rambling. Public property is property owned by the government, and the back of a post office is restricted to the public by signs and locked doors. That’s the gist of it.
But the Police can turn off, mute, or just flat-out refuse to release body cam footage or release it HEAVILY redacted. Plus, police can, and often do lie in the performance of their job. We, as citizens have for far too long have let the police go unchecked and when they do commit bad actions, they investigate themselves. This is just one way of the citizens watching the watchmen.
There are restricted areas in post offices, and government building's, anywhere that is not restricted is open to the public if your on public property. Just a basic guideline
@31:05. Holding a camera is not harassment. Holding a camera is not distracting someone from their job
Who is the real Sov Cit? An auditor exercising his rights? Or the Police and legal system violating clearly written law? Aren't Police supposed to be held to a higher standard? Clearly they are not!
Any open, non staff areas of public locations, streets, sidewalks, libraries, post offices, etcetera You can film, and can record buildings areas you could see from the sidewalk. Some people just record and arent auditors but refuse to turn off their cameras. They do show the good and bad of their interactions, most times. At times, when a FOIA request for body cam footage is requested, some crazy comments are said about the auditor.