There’s only so much social media that even I can find the time to consume and engage with, and I’ll admit that my least visited platform is TikTok. Not merely because I’m clearly not in its generational sweet spot, or the fact that one of the few videos I’ve uploaded was when my friend’s teenage daughter taught me some viral dance moves while I was wearing what in hindsight was a poorly chosen pair of too-tight shorts. Search for it at your own risk.
On top of that, my TikTok algorithm somehow defaults me down the rabbit hole of what I’ve come to learn are the 1st Amendment Audit videos that I’ve come to learn are as ubiquitous and dopamine-inducing as home chefs showing off their “famous” breakfast sliders or sponsored ads for crunchy seafood snacks. For the yet uninitiated, here’s how FREEDOM FORUM’s Lata Nott and Alex Morey person-splained it back in June:
A First Amendment audit occurs when people film public officials or employees to hold them accountable or “test” their right to film in public spaces like town halls, libraries, police stations, parking lots, or state and local agencies. The public space “passes” the test if the audit is uneventful. It fails the test if a public employee confronts the person filming (or “auditor”), attempts to stop them from filming, threatens them with arrest or removes them from the public space.
First Amendment audit videos are often posted to social media. The audits themselves have become a form of activism, with proponents saying they promote First Amendment education, transparency, public access and open government. But critics say some audits go too far in pursuit of viral content, disrupting government services, and making employees and citizens feel harassed.
As someone who has seen way too many of these “audits” I can tell you that the majority I’ve seen are amateurishly shot and inspired by the very same techniques that reality television has successfully employed for decades. Even a layperson now knows the secret that the term “reality” is a euphamism and that situations are designed are strategically designed in advance to maximize the chances of something more watachable emerging. Hence the most frequent marks tend to be “karens”–high-minded yentas who have their own elite and frequently incorrect assumptions over what actually is the law–and the sorts of policemen who apparently were inspired to join the force after watching an inordinate amount of COPS. Indeed, these productions resemble the earliest days of that show–yet another I was directly involved with growing–which used the then-novel concepts of dash, body and steady cams to capture domestic violence and drunk drivers in all of their indisputably addicting glory. Only this time it’s the “bad boys” themselves that are the punk’d.
From the looks of some of their more successful provocateurs one could jump to the conclusion that this is the sort of faux flag-embracing that defined the Proud Boys and their frequent reliance on face coverings suggests overtones of ICE agents. But the dream of making big money online as a content creator is a clearly bi-partisan and cross-generational lure. Like everything else in the wild west of online video, there are few true successes and plenty of posers. One of the most demonstrably successful exceptions is one Sean Paul Reyes, the mastermind behind the LONG ISLAND AUDIT channel who self-defines as a “consitutional activist and independent journalist”. He claims to have more than one million subscribers and per FINDACHANNEL.NET to date they have produced 564 videos, 688,000 subscribers (and) 255,999,556 total views. I personally know some actual channels that would kill for such traction.
Reyes’ reach and the recommendations of AM I FREE TO GO? aside the likelihood of you encountering one of these content creators is minimal. Hence why it’s probably a good idea for you to carefully read something else Nott and Morey wrote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a “paramount public interest in a free flow of information to the people concerning public officials.” Other federal courts have found that the First Amendment freedoms of the press and speech protect the right to film in public spaces. For example, one federal appeals court has ruled that, “A citizen’s right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”
This means that auditors can legally film their interactions with employees and officials in public spaces without first obtaining their consent. However, this right is not without limitations. Auditors have no right to film in nonpublic spaces ― places where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy and where others would need permission to enter, such as a personal office. But they can record anything they can see from a public space with their naked eye, which may include some parts of nonpublic spaces.
Even law enforcement officials apparently need a refresher course. POLICELEGALSCIENCES.com offers the following bulleted recommendations:
- Remain calm. Ideally, the police officer will remain silent during the auditor’s verbal attacks, because silence makes a boring video. If the officer must speak to the auditor, the officer should be courteous.
- Identify criminal activity. Auditors often seek to get arrested because it makes a more interesting, and profitable, video. If an officer arrests an auditor without probable cause, this violates the auditor’s constitutional rights and exposes the officer and the law enforcement agency to a potential lawsuit. Therefore, officers must establish facts that provide a reasonable suspicion that the auditor is engaging in criminal activity before initiating a Terry stop, and must establish facts that provide probable cause to believe the auditor has committed a criminal offense before arresting the auditor.
- Clearly limit access to restricted areas. In nonpublic forums, including courthouses, police stations, and prisons, place signs that read “Authorized Personnel Only” at doorways leading to restricted areas and/or control access through locking doors.
- Establish written, content-neutral policies. Limiting audio and visual recording in nonpublic forums can be vital to protecting the safety of peace officers and the public. For example, recording and publicizing information about ongoing criminal investigations can endanger officers and witnesses while allowing criminals to escape accountability. Recording and publicizing individuals’ social security numbers or credit cards numbers can expose them to identity theft and fraud.
You know, the exact sort of behavior that the visionaries behind COPS sold us all on in the first place.
But if indeed all of this is protected by the 1st Amendment that also means you can turn the camera on them. Show as much of the internet that you can reach exactly how they look and how overwhelming they can be with their pseudo-professional set-ups and intentionally intimidating cosplay. When they say “they are working on a story” and concede they are an independent journalist ask them how their stats compare with LONG ISLAND AUDIT’s. If they choose not to respond, politely ask them how many sponsors and supporters they acquired in the last six months. What their CPM currently goes for and who represents them in their crucial negotiations. Lacking that, ask them what else they might be doing to actually afford all of their fancy gadgets, let alone their rent. And then post that to your own YouTube or TikTok channel and give that person even more competition than they already had.
If you do have such skill sets, you’re clearly way better at this than I am. If you do fall into that category, may I then humbly ask that you share with me exactly how I adjust my TikTok algorithm to allow me to only choose to contribute views to folks I actually want to watch and not the ones that drive me as batty as the cops and the karens? I’d like to refresh my own feed.
Until next time…