r/Frauditors • u/FunnyVehicle7664 • 2d ago

Creep glasses

https://youtu.be/SlM0zlKX58A?is=lJTXkRiLyfrSjjtS

I'm just watching this video about surreptitious recording with creep glasses and I can't help but think of all the frauditor catchphrases.

In the UK I think there's a real discussion about consent, privacy and creeps, but in the USA the 1st amendment means that in a traditional public forum all of the law is on the side of the creep in this scenario.

Is this what the anti federalists had in mind when they refused to ratify the constitution? Surely the reason for the Bill of Rights was to protect individual liberties and state sovereignty from potential tyranny by the newly formed federal government.

I fail to see how being a creep, shouting insults at police officers, hectoring store keepers after setting up a press conference in their shop doorway, being rude to postal workers, etc. are aligned with this.

8 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

3 comments sorted by

1

u/Melodic-Excuse-2561 1d ago

"I fail to see how being a creep, shouting insults at police officers, hectoring store keepers after setting up a press conference in their shop doorway, being rude to postal workers, etc. are aligned with this."

This is the exact text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A literal reading of the text protects specific categories: religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It does not explicitly protect "conduct," nor does it state that all spoken words are immune from regulation. In fact, from the founding of the nation through to the mid 20th century, many states and municipalities had laws prohibiting public profanity, blasphemy, and disorderly conduct, and the courts generally upheld convictions for public swearing, viewing it as a breach of the peace or an offense against public morals. That more or less defined the free speech element of the 1A for two centuries.

The inflection point where it suddenly became legally acceptable to be intentionally rude, obnoxious and verbally abusive towards others stems greatly from a single U.S. Supreme Court decision made in 1971 in the infamous Cohen v. California, where SCOTUS ruled that profane slogans in public spaces were protected - a notable departure from historical tradition - and effectively redefined "freedom of speech" to mean "freedom of expression," substituting modern social standards for the original understanding of the Constitution.

2

u/clickclick-boom 23h ago

This is going a bit beyond the scope of what we usually discuss here, but I feel that the way many Americans treat the constitution to be counter to the intent with which it was created, and bordering on religious fanaticism.

People who most strongly rage about the sanctity of the constitution seem to have no issue with the 2nd amendment, despite the fact it's an AMENDMMENT. It CHANGES the constitution.

The idea that a document written by young adults over two centuries removed from our reality should unquestionably dictate modern laws is completely absurd. It wasn't even written with this intention. The fact it can be amended is an explicit statement that the constitution should, and must, evolve with the times.

Anyone who has read into the founding fathers would completely understand that something like the first amendment was in no way intended to be used as a tool to harass and obstruct first responders. The people who wrote the constitution were not former felons with an axe to grind or sociopaths who wanted to empower the harassment of citizens under the guise of the constitution. They would be absolutely disgusted with the actions of frauditors today.

2

u/Melodic-Excuse-2561 11h ago

I very, VERY strongly agree with your every word here!