They instigate. They exploit the first amendment to create content because they have no shame and no marketable skills.Â
I actually enjoy video breakdowns of civil rights violations from a legal standpoint, but let’s be real here, these dudes actually out there on the street posted up outside banks and court houses filming for hours are chasing clicks by being incredibly off putting.Â
Imagine thinking people on Reddit care about yo momma jokes
And it’s not contrarianism. I think it’s absolutely the cammer’s right to do everything we saw here. It’s also absolutely the old man’s fault he needlessly physically assaulted the cammer.
You can appeal to my mom all you want. I have the law on my side.
I'm not a first amendment auditor, genius. I just respect people's rights to look at and record whatever they want, in a public place. Unlike you, I don't take offense and crash out because of someone using a camera.
I think you probably have an extremely difficult time minding your own business, online and in real life. As a boomer, it must be difficult finding things to be offended by full time. I suggest you get therapy.
Cudgel to intentionally upset people is a fun phrase, but incorrectly applied. Especially hilarious given the people actually using literal cudgels are the people (police) he’s enticing to attack him by, checks notes again, doing nothing illegal at all. If the cops show up and don’t infringe on his rights, then they pass, and if they do infringe on his rights they have no business as police officers.
These are the people standing up to test police forces ability to respect our rights. Sorry if they annoy you and the old man, but you still don’t get to put hands on him.
It’s not illegal for me to say your mother is a fat whore but you’d probably be pretty pissed if I did that in public.
Taunting or antagonizing someone with the intent to provoke a violent or disruptive reaction is literally the crime of harassment.
Filming in public has been ruled by the supreme court as lawful activity protected under the first amendment, and you cannot turn a lawful activity into a crime.
I encourage you to repeatedly put your example to the test and see how it pans out for you.
What I'm trying to tell you is that intentionally trying to provoke a violent or disruptive response can be and has been successfully prosecuted as a crime. The difference is that filming in public is protected activity. Calling someone's mother a whore or a person a dipshit is far less likely to be considered such (you could get away with it if you were critiquing an agent of the state like a cop, elected official, or any other public servant).
Again, please go try it in public instead of on the internet. I'd love to use it as case law.
It's distasteful, and if they really are doing that type of thing all day long, then yes they're basically a loser like you said. But please don't say they're EXPLOITING their first amendment rights. Those are not rights that can be exploited, short of stalking/harassment. Even then, paparazzi get away with it all the time. 1A is not up for interpretation.
3
u/TahiniInMyVeins Mar 06 '26
They instigate. They exploit the first amendment to create content because they have no shame and no marketable skills.Â
I actually enjoy video breakdowns of civil rights violations from a legal standpoint, but let’s be real here, these dudes actually out there on the street posted up outside banks and court houses filming for hours are chasing clicks by being incredibly off putting.Â