If so. My God the media literacy of this world is completely fucked.
A first amendment audit is when a citizen goes into public and engages in their first amendment right to film in public.
People will lose their minds, attack, rob, kidnap or try to murder people solely because they see a camera in a hand.
Redditors will agree, losing their mind saying how it's unacceptable to hold a camera in public when one person doesn't want it, or how you can force someone to behave like a maniac against their will.
Doing this exposes a LOT of corruption.
They will say it's unacceptable to get views online, or to earn a single penny from the videos.
They will also say there are "better methods" and then refuse to explain, or they'll give some source that doesn't follow the same standards, and gets views and money
No. The auditor didn't force them to be violent maniacs.
No. The presence of a camera didn't force them to stop doing their job.
No. The auditor doesn't deserve to be attacked because he touched a camera while in public.
Why isn't it justified to think every car is about to turn on to the sidewalk and kill people?
Why isn't it justified to think people not holding cameras will start shooting?
Why are fears of terrorism only "justified" when its someone holding a camera?
You see it all the time in first amendment audit videos and threads. The most insane people you'll ever see will come out of the woodwork to express their fears that someone with a camera is about to start murdering people.
Redditors view these fears as reasonable, and will claim its a common thing to see before attacks. Naturally when you ask for evidence they get extremely hostile and refuse to show you a single shred.
Why doesn't this apply to anyone else?
We saw that attack in Italy where that guy started running people over.
Why isn't it reasonable to fear every single car is about to start trying to murder you?
Why aren't redditors chasing down cars screaming at them and demanding to proof of their innocence the way people holding cameras are expected to do?
The shooters in Austin weren't holding cameras. Why isn't it reasonable to assume people not holding cameras will start shooting people?
Why is "that person is holding a camera. that means they are planning an attack" considered reasonable?
Jon wouldn't suddenly become a good character with a satisfying conclusion to his story.
I guarantee if a journalist walked into that place and started attacking anyone who disobeyed them, the cops would arrest them immediately.
First amendment audits are a form of engaging in your rights. You exist in public and refuse demands and orders to stop engaging in your rights.
Apparently this is unacceptable. It's considered violent, intimidating, provoking, aggressive, confrontational to hold a camera in public.
It is a very effective way to educate citizens on their rights, and one single video can expose entire cities and states as criminal.
Apparently these people are absolved of their crimes if their victim was holding a camera.
Apparently uploading any work to YouTube or getting a single dollar invalidates their work.
So what is a better method for doing the above that follows the same standards? No clicks, no views, not a single penny.