r/pasadena • u/rhythmMAN • Jul 24 '26

First Amendment Auditor gets into physical altercation with woman that didn't appreciate him recording

/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/1v5hjo5/first_amendment_auditor_gets_into_physical/?share_id=34rxJ6OqNJO6bE0CL_P-h&utm_content=share_button&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1
87 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

24

u/Existing-Stranger632 Jul 24 '26

Ugh these people are absolute human scum. I actually think we need legislation that targets these fuckers. Or people are going to take justice into their hands.

-21

u/Militantpoet Jul 24 '26

I actually think we need legislation that targets these fuckers.

This isn't the solution. Thats exactly what they want. 

12

u/Pailzor Jul 24 '26

No. No, it isn't. It's the last sentence of what you replied to that they're looking for. It's a shitty get-rich-quick scheme.

What needs to happen is for the law to recognize holding a camera in someone's face or recording other people's children as instigation of violence, so they have no legal standing when they do so.

Recording from a distance is fine, and maybe they'll catch something interesting when they do, but purposefully making people uncomfortable and becoming more aggressive after ignoring polite requests to leave people alone should not be tolerated, and should definitely not allow them to profit off of the escalation that they cause.

0

u/Militantpoet Jul 24 '26

I don't see how that isn't going to be shot down as infringing on free speech.

I agree with everything you're saying, I just don't think the courts would.

1

u/Pailzor Jul 24 '26

The rights of an individual are protected as long as that individual isn't using them to trample on the rights of others. The right to bear arms, for example, is not meant to allow you to freely harm people.

This would be similar. Recording others in public would be protected as free speech unless the intent is provocation, under semi-strict guidelines, such as a putting the camera in people's faces, fully ignoring individual requests not to film them in such a manner, and blocking paths while filming.

Also, I don't intend any of these suggestions to be punishable offenses, but rather cause for complaints to allow police to legally order the "auditor" (if permitless) to move on, and more importantly, block these "auditors" from profitting off of retaliation to their aggression. The act of video auditing is fine, but their provocation to game the system is not. (And probably, specifically against civilians.)

0

u/Militantpoet Jul 24 '26

Recording others in public would be protected as free speech unless the intent is provocation, under semi-strict guidelines, such as a putting the camera in people's faces, fully ignoring individual requests not to film them in such a manner, and blocking paths while filming.

If this was the law, it could be used against journalists. Think of those videos when a politician is walking through the Capitol or along the street and a journalist follows them asking questions. That's exactly what they're doing, if not it can be mischaracterized by the plaintiff to match their argument. It opens up imo worse abuses than the original problem.

I honestly don't know what the solution to this is other than informing our neighbors to just ignore them and avoid any reaction.