First Amendment Audits: How to Respond
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.ย. 2024
- This training session covers the constitutional protections for the right to record, including First Amendment audits. It explores the lawful limitations that may apply to audits, and discusses how law enforcement officers can best prepare and appropriately respond to visits from First Amendment auditors. Presenters review examples of both successful and “failed” audits, walk through hypothetical scenarios, and share examples of Georgia court cases involving the right to record.
The Jan. 23, 2023, training session was hosted by the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council, the First Amendment Clinic of the University of Georgia School of Law and the Georgia First Amendment Foundation. The training is a P.O.ST. course for Georgia law enforcement officers, DLE02G.
Presenters:
• Clare Norins, Director, UGA School of Law’s First Amendment Clinic and Board Member of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation
• Lindsey Floyd, Legal Fellow, UGA First Amendment Clinic
• Madeleine Blair, Student, UGA First Amendment Clinic
This video should be mandatory viewing for all public officials and employees
These clowns stick their cameras against the window of every car in the parking lot to provoke suspicion. While not illegal that is not Normal “news gathering.” It’s designed to provoke and does. This “auditor” never let the cops ask what he was doing. He just began his verbal diarrhea while backing away then claims he felt cornered. This presentation is as lacking as the “auditors’ “ videos as to context. In other words word pointless word salad.
@@jtjones4081The point of auditors “baiting” LEO’s is to demonstrate whether an individual LEO is truly emotionally, and mentally capable of performing their duties without allowing their personal feelings to influence their actions! Realistically speaking LEA are always conducting sting operations ex. using “bait cars” in which they intentionally provoke criminal activity!
This sounds like a sophomoric presentation by a student. Auditors are members of the public who happen to have a camera. Treat them like any other patron
If there is a policy in place against filming, and there are many instances where a 1st Amendment auditor ignores legitimate anti-recording policies, they they are no longer a member of the public or a patron like any other.
Awesome vid, I have been looking for different perspectives, and a better understanding of constitutional law and as to what is going on in "This day and age".
This presentation takes an extremely sanguine view of 1st Amendment audits. The organization providing this training only takes the viewpoint of the so-called “auditor.” 1st Amendment rights belong to all citizens. Law enforcement officers and the general public are put at risk everyday by 1A audits and the liability is squarely on the auditor. You do not get this impression listening to these kids present this one-sided view.
all I hear is grumble grumble grumble from the cops.
Hahaha. They hate First Amendment
I am a professional artist and photographer. I can photograph anything I can see from public space. I am often harassed by police in my street photography and architecture photography.
Not entirely true.
@@vtnatureboy ~ Entirely true. Anything the eyes can see from public, a camera can record from public.
@@DrSOBX-p4k False. And to prove it, I’ll attempt to walk into the Supreme Court of the United States with a camera. Now STFU with this nonsense.
@@martinlinson6219 I doubt you are a “professional” anything. Real pros don’t get harassed. I live in Chicago. I know plenty of professional photographers who take architectural photos. They don’t get harassed. It’s amazing how people will lie - like you - to try and make a point.
Even considering that this video was a presentation for law enforcement personnel, my opinion is that you provided false and misleading information and examples in several areas. Giving the LEO any equivocal answers gives them a "loop hole" to violate the civil rights. For instance, your citation of OCGA 42-5-17 appears to ignore the definition of "loitering" as being in a place or time that is not normal or lacking lawful purpose. Seems to me that a journalist videoing a prison work detail out in public is a protected expression of the First Amendment. In your library example you failed to address the obvious action that many LEOs default to which is "trespass from a public building. Can simple videoing be the basis for a trespass, absent any other disturbance or violation?
The avg person sitting in a library is entitled to peacefully exist. It's human nature that a % of the general public may be disturbed by the presence of a camera and the possibility their image may appear on TH-cam tomorrow. So whose rights are being violated now? Meanwhile, the librarian wishing to maintain the sanctity of the library has every right to wish the auditor away. LEO are a tool to accomplish the job... Ala trespass....
Library manager here, and you raise an important question. No, the act of filming or photographing public areas cannot be the sole basis for a directive to stop the activity or leave the building. However, the act of filming does not give any additional protections to activities that break legitimate rules in the course of that filming. Example: standing directly in front of the self-checkout machine and preventing other people from using it will get you lawfully asked to move, and refusal to do so will get you lawfully kicked out whether you are engaged in a 1st Amendment-protected activity or not.
While I applaud your efforts, I think you are going about this training video the wrong way. An auditor is just another person and should be treated as such. Everyone should be afforded the rights given by the first amendment and every other amendment in the constitution. I believe a better approach to this video would be exposing all the ways that the government knowingly or unknowingly violates the rights of citizens and abuses their authority (i.e. , using excessive force, asking for and requiring ID without reasonable suspicion of a crime, racial profiling, pretextual traffic stops/quotas, prolonging traffic stops without cause, denying recording in public, soliciting trespasses, trespassing from public property, failure to protect private information, illegal searches, civil asset forfeiture without conviction or even evidence of a crime, practicing medicine without a license, voter suppression, withholding public records or videos, etc.).
This isn't just about recording and quite frankly shouldn't matter if a camera is present or not in public. The camera is merely for documentation. This movement is about teaching the government to stop violating the rights given to the people under the constitution. It's about helping people, educating the public and gov.'t entities about the rights of the people, having proper lawful signage to direct employees and the public, treating people like human beings rather than criminals, upholding the constitution at all times, de-escalating, being transparent and accountable to the people at all times, stopping corruption, hiring emotionally mature employees, and becoming an entity that the public can trust. It would really be great if government employees, including elected officials and law enforcement, were required by law to tell the truth and could be held accountable when they failed to do so but until then, the constitution is all we have. We all need to understand it and abide by it.
You have cut through the treacle to the heart of the matter. Can you direct me to any websites that show what the average citizen can do to support first amendment auditors? I would like to be more active in some sort of supporting roll. I have donated to various auditors, the institute of justice, and the movement of eliminate qualified immunity, but it seems little has changed in the decade since auditors have grown into a real movement.
It's extremely frustrating to watch auditor after auditor jailed with no discernible change in government attitudes or behavior. It's also frustrating to watch the ease with which LEOs lie to auditors and the general public alike, all for the alleged goal of law enforcement. How can lying ever make the world a better place?
41 CFR § 102-74.420 is much more strict in federal buildings.
How is "near" inmates defined? What is the distance? Sound like it would be struck down as vague.
These students should read Kerr v. City of Boulder. That 10th Circuit Judge doesn’t agree. Does this Professor do any research to verify what her students spew?
I travelled for thousands of miles and was never reported, no one cared about my travels. I became news when I parked in a police parking lot and three goons accosted me for being there. That's how news work. A cop patrolling his beat isn't news, him crashing his vehicle is. Get a grip, lady! The news is bait. It says: "Watch me!" ,"You want to know this!" every time in what ever medium is convened. A flock of migrant birds flying by piece is watched by a milionesimal part of a piece that reports on a flock of migrant birds blocked on their flight. That's how news work. The norm is ignored the extraordinary is reported. More or less sensationalist is irrelevant. Besides, you aren't comparing the same event reported two different ways. You're comparing two different events, reported by two different agents, published on the same site.
So if I want to break into cars all I have to do is have a camera rolling while I case all the cars in the parking lot? Good to know, Lawyers!😂😂😂😂
And you’re saying that because I know I’ll arouse suspicion, I need my Shpeel prepared, just like an “auditor,” then when police approach me showing me a badge I just need to talk over them while backing away and They become the culprits??? GREAT! Is that what they teach in law school now? I’ll tell all my criminal friends!
@@jtjones4081 Go ahead! Tell all your criminal friends! That's what they teach at law schools: how to prosecute for "case all the cars".
Criminal association rings any bells?
He started to back himself in a corner, giving them more power over him.
27:03 so just like when the gov releases video to news it's clipped just like this vid is. Perhaps you could show the gov workers the whole video
27:15 yes you do just watch the whole 11min video.
If a member of the public makes threats or rude comments I believe they can be singled out for recording for the auditors safety as the have injected themselves into the situation. Unless parking lots are marked police personnel or authorized personnel only, it is open to the public.
Why is reporting turned off?
Why wouldn't any of the People have the right to sit or lean on any of the People's property, including the People's police car? Which law is that? 🤔 They can maybe be liable if they damage it or refuse to leave when the officer needs to move their car, thus physically interfering or some other actual crime. Don't just make up crimes again, please. And don't just guess about legal issues again. Lol sitting on the People's police car is definitely not illegal! A mother can even open up a police car if it is unlocked, and put her baby inside if she needs to do so. Officers can legally sit on Our cars and the People can, too. I would appreciate you editing this to reflect the facts so that you do not misleed more Police into feeling entitled to arrest people over such things.
You seem not to remember that when you say the "people's" car, you mean all the people. Not just you. You are not allowed to just go into a police station and use their phone as your own.
Public facilities need to manage their space.
When the Patriot Act was proposed the government wanted to gather info from libraries about what books named people were withdrawing. The Libraries sued citing the rights of their patrons and won. So now you’re saying auditors may record patrons at the desk withdrawing books and publish that???
Many of these "experts" don't have a clue what they are talking about. When you do "failed audit" in air quotes and call it click bate, you lose all creditability. Aggressive cops that only escalated the situation. I can tell by the lack of participation that your audience is not interested at all. It is your duty as a public employee to answer citizens questions, that is why we pay you. One auditor has more subscribes than the other, that is why there were more views. You analysis is flawed. The purpose of these audits is to expose government officials that don't follow the law. Once again your bias shines through. Your presentation also conflated news gathering with publishing. You can gather what you want in public, sometimes what you publish can break the law.
well said...excellent assessment
It’s not surprising criminals get lots of views from antisocial felons. That’s not a metric that matters.
When network news does teasers of wrecks, shootings, fights, etc is that considered "click-bait"? News about public employees is legitimate news.
It is possible to test 1st amendment rights without recording a thing. Yes? The real purpose of the recording is to publish it on TH-cam and get money. That's it. the claim that they are "keeping our government accountable" is total BS. These presenters are biased - toward 1st Amendment protections. But those protections cover everybody - and SCOTUS has ruled that not all speech is protected.
Even. If it is an all employee parking lot, it is still open to those who are walking around taking videos because he is not in a vehicle. And there are no signs posted saying otherwise.
you are preaching to the choir
The main purpose of the audit is to make money from TH-cam.
you were off the mark you should have shown the ones calling names and being crap and what the public realy has to put up with being talked to like a dog and called names for trying to do your job
agreed. Especially since that behavior is in response to the lack of accountability and Qualified Immunity, they've enjoyed for so many years. people are simply sick of it. Just keep in mind Steve, that they aren't being shown disrespect. They are simply being disrespected BACK.
@@adamriddles the audit haters have no logic or reason at all in their entitled brains. There is nothing to debate with them at all. You can give them 1000 examples that go against their ignorant beliefs and they could care less.
Have a pop song ready on your phone to be played when confronted. This will cancel any revenue the auditor expects to make from their video. From there, you have to identify yourself if they ask you to. Don’t give them any attention, and they’ll be on their way. If you catch them breaking any laws, arrest them after explaining what their crime is. Do not argue with them, this is not a negotiation. Do not react to them, that is what they want.
You don't think playing music at them is reacting to them? How about leaving them alone if they're not breaking the law?
@@justusbraz you want to be annoying to me, even if it’s not illegal, I have the right to be annoying back. By react I mean don’t get emotional because that’s what they want from you. And you don’t have to play it at them, you can just have it as atmospheric. It’s just to fuck up their monetization that’s all.
@@mapache_del_sur They have actually changed that rule on YT, making music captured incidentally in the background not a qualifying strike. FYI. As long as it's not the focus of the video.
@@justusbraz well good for the auditors then.
@@justusbraz although I would still give it a shot. You never know, maybe it can ruin their day. They may have to appeal it and go through some bullshit to get it monetized again.