• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1A Audits

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Blackangst1,

Oh, you mean videotaping, photographing and eavesdropping surreptitiously? Or just out in the open?

Does this not fall under First Amendment permissions?

Because I thought it did since you mentioned people getting upset over little things and then you mentioned "Karens," whose attitudes and lies often get Black people arrested or worse. Oh, yeah, videos prove or disprove many a claim.

But at one time, print journalists called this fact checking.
 
Blackangst1,

Oh, you mean videotaping, photographing and eavesdropping surreptitiously? Or just out in the open?

Does this not fall under First Amendment permissions?

Because I thought it did since you mentioned people getting upset over little things and then you mentioned "Karens," whose attitudes and lies often get Black people arrested or worse. Oh, yeah, videos prove or disprove many a claim.

But at one time, print journalists called this fact checking.
Yes. Recording video and audio in public places. I mentioned Karens because many people act like it. "You need my permission to tape me!" False. "Its illegal to film in federal buildings!" False (except in restricted areas, which auditors respect). "I dont want to be filmed!" Well, sweetheart, you shouldnt leave your house then. As far as what you mention as videotaping "surreptitiously", thats just not the case with auditors. They film out in the open. And yes, this is a 1A right thus...1A audits. You may be surprised how many people and LEO dont recognize that.
 
I get it now. And I agree with you. We photographers always had similar problems shooting in public which is why I shied away from street photography.

That mostly involved photographing an individual unaware someone was aiming a camera lens at them.
 
Careful tho, in MA you must tell people the audio is being recorded, even in public

Yeah. There are several two party consent states, but each one has caveats. For example, CT states:

  • When the person is not in plain view.
  • While the person is inside a dwelling.
  • In situations where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
  • With the intention of arousing or satisfying the sexual desires of such person or any other person.

None of these would apply to open public places (like a post office). Gotta check the by-laws if you decide to audit.
 
What I want to know is if I apply for a conceal carry permit in the California city in which I live, will the local sherif be a deny me in light of the recent Supreme Court decision. Should I or should I not do a 2nd amendment check? That is more on my mind than 1st related matters.

I already knew, but its interesting you're finally being honest about your priorities.
 
I get it now. And I agree with you. We photographers always had similar problems shooting in public which is why I shied away from street photography.

That mostly involved photographing an individual unaware someone was aiming a camera lens at them.
It also should be said auditors dont specifically focus on ONE person when auditing. UNLESS of course someone walks right up to the camera and starts talking (which happens frequently). Also, auditors generally dont just walk up on people and interact with them. They only do so if that person or LEO initiates first contact. Now, what happens after that is up to the auditor. As I said in my OP, there are some a@@hole auditors, but the ones I mentioned are always professional and courteous.
 
Are you aware that if I search "1A audits" on YouTube, I may not get the same results as you since we most likely have different data points the algorithm will use for recommendations?

I guess it's moot, because if it's all YouTube videos, I'm not going to watch any of them. I'll read an article happily.


Youtube news/educational/review videos are fine provided they are NOT your only source of information.

Especially now that those id10t's over @ Google decided to eliminate the "dislike" counter instead of doing the harder job of actually fixing it instead!

😡 🙄
 
Youtube news/educational/review videos are fine provided they are NOT your only source of information.

Especially now that those id10t's over @ Google decided to eliminate the "dislike" counter instead of doing the harder job of actually fixing it instead!

😡 🙄
Sure, but I'm not going to go out and watch some random videos just because this clown can't be bothered to use his big boy words to explain what a "1A Audit" is. I'll watch SciShow and Tom Scott and so forth.
 
Or, alternatively, if you dont know, dont comment. Novel idea.
Deflection. If you cannot succinctly explain what you are talking about and use informational sources other than youtube, I'd say you don't really know, and shouldn't start threads about it. You've been asked several times to explain what you think it means, and you've done nothing but deflect.

BTW, 'freedom of the press' is not separate from 'freedom of speech'. Not all speech is press, but all press IS speech. Speech doesn't mean vocally speaking only. Stop acting like they're entirely different issues.
 
Deflection. If you cannot succinctly explain what you are talking about and use informational sources other than youtube, I'd say you don't really know, and shouldn't start threads about it. You've been asked several times to explain what you think it means, and you've done nothing but deflect.

BTW, 'freedom of the press' is not separate from 'freedom of speech'. Not all speech is press, but all press IS speech. Speech doesn't mean vocally speaking only. Stop acting like they're entirely different issues.

www.google.com
 
If you cannot succinctly explain what you are talking about and use informational sources other than youtube

On the one hand "if you can't explain it to a 5 year old you don't really understand it yourself" is among the truest phrases ever spoken.

However on the other there are PLENTY of very accurate and educational sources of vetted and accurate information in video-format available on YT so I believe discrediting it as a source is unwarranted.


I personally absorb and analyze information much more effectively by reading and then following up with additional information via video but MANY younger folks for better or worse (and I agree it's mostly for worse!) don't read much at all anymore beyond maybe "Cliff-Notes" so video is almost required.
 
However on the other there are PLENTY of very accurate and educational sources of vetted and accurate information in video-format available on YT so I believe discrediting it as a source is unwarranted.
I won't dispute that, but it doesn't mean that everything on youtube is valid info. There's a lot of bullshit floating around on there as well. It's akin to using wikipedia to support statements/claims, without referencing anything else. There's a lot of dependable and factual information on wikipedia, but there's also plenty of falsities and unverified claims as well.

Him (and others) posting minimal supporting info and then demanding others to "look it up" is nothing new.
 
I won't dispute that, but it doesn't mean that everything on youtube is valid info. There's a lot of bullshit floating around on there as well. It's akin to using wikipedia to support statements/claims, without referencing anything else. There's a lot of dependable and factual information on wikipedia, but there's also plenty of falsities and unverified claims as well.

Him (and others) posting minimal supporting info and then demanding others to "look it up" is nothing new.
Do you have any idea how many times Ive commented on something I dont know alot about and was told "go do your research"?

But thats different, right?

🙄

Again. If you dont know what a 1A audit is, go do some research. Then comment.
 
Do you have any idea how many times Ive commented on something I dont know alot about and was told "go do your research"?

But thats different, right?

🙄

Again. If you dont know what a 1A audit is, go do some research. Then comment.
More deflection instead of giving a valid answer. You poor baby. Show me on the doll where the fact-checkers touched you.

I didn't say that I don't know what it is. I'm saying that you haven't or can't explain what it entails yourself. I think you have but a sliver of understanding, but want to act like you're the only one who gets it.
 
More deflection instead of giving a valid answer. You poor baby. Show me on the doll where the fact-checkers touched you.

I didn't say that I don't know what it is. I'm saying that you haven't or can't explain what it entails yourself. I think you have but a sliver of understanding, but want to act like you're the only one who gets it.

What are you after here? An explanation of what a 1A audit is?
 
I won't dispute that, but it doesn't mean that everything on youtube is valid info. There's a lot of bullshit floating around on there as well. It's akin to using wikipedia to support statements/claims, without referencing anything else. There's a lot of dependable and factual information on wikipedia, but there's also plenty of falsities and unverified claims as well.

Him (and others) posting minimal supporting info and then demanding others to "look it up" is nothing new.

FAR from it... of course there's even more B$ available in writing! 😉

Takes considerably more effort to disseminate though!
 
What are you after here? An explanation of what a 1A audit is?
Not for my own sake. I doubt you can actually explain what it is in any detail yourself. You've made a few misleading comments about freedom of speech somehow being entirely disconnected from freedom of the press, but haven't explained what the subject of the thread YOU STARTED means. And you won't, because you've been asked numerous times already and just keep deflecting.
 
Do you have any idea how many times Ive commented on something I dont know alot about and was told "go do your research"?

But thats different, right?

🙄
Yes, because context matters.
Again. If you dont know what a 1A audit is, go do some research. Then comment.
I know if I posted a thread asking what people think of a thing, and it appeared to not be a widely known subject, I wouldn't respond "go watch YouTube", I'd try to share a relatively succinct explanation of the topic. You and I are very, very different people, however.
 
I already knew, but its interesting you're finally being honest about your priorities.
Yup, since we are still waiting on what this thread is supposed to be about, depending on whatever 1A auditing is, and since I have my own ideas about what 2A auditing is, I felt free to mention what my concerns were there. So, since I have no idea what concerns I might have about something so far unspecified, and since 1A reminded me of 2A, I listed a concern I have there. I must have thought about getting a conceal carry permit at least four or five times and at least a ten thousandth as often as you seem to be concerned about me.
 
I agree. Many say auditors paint LEO in a bad light...which is false. They do that on their own. Most times the auditor attempts to educate LEO, and many times LEO says something like I dont care, However, when LEO does do the right thing, and know the law, they are highlighted as such.
I'm glad that people are praising cops when they do the right thing, it's important to remember that encouragement can be as effective or more effective than criticism. Overall though I'm just generally supportive of filming cops. They are public employees acting (mostly) in public areas. If I have no right against being filmed as a private citizen public employees sure as shit shouldn't.
 
Sure Ill oblige.

First, what is a 1A audit? You first need to understand that just about anyone can be a journalist under the law. The 1A auditors are independant journalists, and are offered the same protections under the law as an affiliated journalist. Does the First Amendment cover citizen journalists? | First Amendment Voice

As Professor William E. Lee pointed out, “Anyone can be a journalist and they don’t need an affiliation with an established outlet…it’s increasingly important that unaffiliated journalists know they have the same legal protection as a reporter at a newspaper.

With that out of the way, they are protected under the First Amendment for journalist.

What do 1A auditors do? Typically they go to public places (government run, not private businesses) that have public access to certain areas. As I mentioned above, even publically accesable areas have restricted areas, and those are marked as such. Auditors do not go into those areas. They go into these areas to videorecod, audio and video. They will often walk around these lobbies and hallways, and record signs on the wall, artwork, etc. They will almost never approach or make first contact with the public. They willl however talk to employees asking questions or to say hi. They do not interview the employees. They will also often walk around the grounds (that arent marked as restricted) to document that. They will also often stand on public areas outside (sidewalks, public easement).

What is the reaction to the auditors? From the public, they either wave and smile, or walk up and thank them for keeping police and public employees accountable, Often, the public will ask what theyre doing, to which the auditor will reply with something like "Im an independent journalist working on a story". They will often ask about what, and auditors usually say "I cant reveal that as my story is not published yet." From there people will either say oh ok, and walk away, or come unglued. As I mentioned in post 27, "Yes. Recording video and audio in public places. I mentioned Karens because many people act like it. "You need my permission to tape me!" False. "Its illegal to film in federal buildings!" False (except in restricted areas, which auditors respect). "I dont want to be filmed!" Well, sweetheart, you shouldnt leave your house then. As far as what you mention as videotaping "surreptitiously", thats just not the case with auditors. They film out in the open. And yes, this is a 1A right thus...1A audits. You may be surprised how many people and LEO dont recognize that. " Sometimes the public or government employee will call LEO, to which the auditor typically says "Go ahead" and will stick around until LEO gets there.

What about auditors and LEO? Typically, when LEO rolls up, the auditor says "Hows it going?" From there it depends on the officer and his training. They will always ask what the auditor is doing, and the auditor usually will respond with something like "videoing from a public place", "taking pictures", or something similar. Typical reactions from LEO are:

1. Ah OK. Well youre on public area so youre good. Please just dont interfere with business.
2. Come at the auditor with all kinds of wrong info. "Youre trespassing!" (on public property? LOL). "Do you have permission?" (on public property? LOL). "Give me your ID!" (most of the time auditors record in non-stop and ID states, and tell the officer "unless Im being retained for a crime, Im not required to provide ID". Many times LEO will respond with "If I ask you for ID its the law you must show it" (WRONG), and then the banter starts. Most of the time it ends up with a sergeant being called, and all LEO end up leaving (the walk of shame).
3. LEO tried to trespass the auditor. Laws differ from state to state, but generally trespass from public property is a multi-step process. First, criminal intent has to be established. Second, a warning must be issued. And finally, if the auditor comes into that place after a warning, a charge of trespass can be issued. It is only at this point ID can be required. Threats of trespass are fairly common, but actual trespass citations are rare.


There are other possible outcomes, but these are the most common. In the case of point #1, if LEO enters a building (usually called by security or an employee) they will talk to a manager or security, and basically tell them the auditor is in a public area, and is not breaking the law. Discussion can go a few ways with this, but the end result is the officer leaves, and the auditor continues.

Some truths to keep in mind when auditing:
1. If you can see something from a public place (an airport or military base for example from a public road or sidewalk) you can videorecord it. As the saying goes, you cant trespass the eyes.
2. Know the laws of the state youre auditing in.
3. Private companies do not maintain roads, put in electrical poles, or fire hydrants. This area is a public easement, and generally runs 30 feet from the center line of the road. Its all considered public.
4. Always keep calm. Unless youre sure of the law, its OK to stand your ground.
5. Always videorecord any interaction with LEO. It will, and has, provided evidence in court that may very well get the case thrown out. You will never win a "he said she said" argument with LEO. Ever.
6. There is NO expectation of privacy in public.
7. The plain view rule (which allows LEO to search, for example, a car if they see contraband "in plain view") protects journalists also. While in a public office or space, if you can see, you can film it.
Plain View :: Fourth Amendment -- Search and Seizure :: US Constitution Annotated :: Justia
  • When you are lawfully present in any public space, you have the right to photograph anything in plain view, including federal buildings and the police. (On private property, the owner may set rules about photography or video.)
  • Police officers may not confiscate or demand to view your photographs or video without a warrant, nor may they delete data under any circumstances. However, they may order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations.
  • If you are videotaping, be aware that there is an important legal distinction between a visual photographic record (fully protected) and the audio portion of a videotape, which some states have tried to regulate under state wiretapping laws.
Well, those are the basics. There is much case law around these concepts which Ill let you investigate if youre interested.

@Pohemi apparently, I do know what Im talking about.
@Moonbeam specifically a 1A audit is to educate people and LEO about this particular part of the 1A (freedom of the press).
 
Last edited:
This is the info that could/should have been included in the OP imho, but thank you for finally outlining it.
Normally if I see a thread about something I dont know about I dont respond. Maybe Ill take your queue and ask "Please explain what this is about!"

Sound good?
 
Back
Top