3 ms·

There are many First Amendment auditors out there, and I agree with you that a good number of them purposefully attempt to provoke a reaction or get under peopl

by jawns 3y ago

There are many First Amendment auditors out there, and I agree with you that a good number of them purposefully attempt to provoke a reaction or get under people's skin. But I've watched dozens of Reyes' videos, and that is not his style. If he enters a public space, he doesn't call attention to himself and typically doesn't speak to anyone unless spoken to. Most often, he films the walls of public buildings, and if he points a camera at anyone in particular, it's only because they've approached him to ask him what he's doing. He is cordial in his responses and will generally politely explain to anyone who inquires that he's an independent journalist gathering content for a story. On the flip side, police and other government officials routinely treat him with contempt and hostility from the moment they see him, barking unlawful orders at him and attempting to suppress conduct that the law explicitly protects. He's been assaulted, had his camera equipment destroyed, and been unlawfully arrested multiple times, as he was by the NYPD. If he comes off a little salty as a result of that mistreatment, it's at least understandable. But even in the case where First Amendment auditors are not being respectful and are acting like jerks ... it's worth noting that the First Amendment is not designed to protect content and actions that others approve of, or that make others feel comfortable. It is explicitly designed to protect speech that others would rather we not speak, religions that others would rather we not practice, journalism that others would rather we not publish. So even if they are being jerks, as long as their conduct is legally protected, it at least allows us to determine whether the First Amendment is being respected.

ryandrake 3y ago
I also don't like how "provoke" is sometimes used as a get-out-of-jail-free card for people with who can't control their reactions or responses. We all have had to deal with random assholes, that's life. But we don't deal with it by acting out ourselves. If I get in a bar fight with someone, it's not acceptable, even if the other guy "provoked" me. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the assholes, and surely the police should have to hold themselves to an even higher standard.
- jawns 3y ago
  You're right. Police and government officials routinely describe First Amendment auditors as attempting to bait law enforcement and public servants, intentionally provoking them into violating their rights. But baiting is when you entice a person to do something wrong by offering them some kind of incentive. And it has to be something they wouldn't otherwise do unless incentivized. Thus, you can't "bait" a law enforcement officer by simply engaging in constitutionally protected conduct, unless the argument from police is that officers just can't restrain themselves from violating people's civil rights when those rights are exercised. In fact, in one of Reyes's encounters with the NYPD that led to an unlawful arrest, one of the officers told him afterward, "You wanted this to happen," and Reyes responded, incredulously, "I wanted you to violate my rights and take away my freedom?" No, he wanted to be able to go about his business without being arrested -- which he was later able to do after this court ruling went into effect.
  - tehwebguy 3y ago
    Exactly — if police want most audits to stop they can simply act right. There is little reason for people to watch a video of police not reacting.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  Sounds like the solution is to come down hard on Agent Provocateurs. You're victim blaming big-time. They're on the receiving end of bullshit and cannot opt out of it, but we'll condemn them for fucking up their response? I'm the most cool-headed person I know and I had to talk a neighbor down from kicking my ass on camera (and in front of my own child) just yesterday. It took a superhuman amount of restraint to not even raise my voice because the adrenaline factory was in overdrive on both sides, gearing up for a fight. The provocateur has an unfair advantage-- the element of uncertainty. Only they know they're not they're going to escalate. Defense is a losing game; it only takes one failure to anticipate a threat before you're dead or unconscious. In order to stay so calm, I had to embrace the possibility that I might actually -die- in that encounter if the guy pulled out a knife. I was armed myself, but didn't draw so as not to escalate. It's a position of vulnerability I should never have had to put myself in. Once the adrenaline rush subsided, I had to go take a fucking nap. Cops don't get that option; they're immediately dispatched to deal with the next asshole.

by jawns 3y ago

ryandrake 3y ago

I also don't like how "provoke" is sometimes used as a get-out-of-jail-free card for people with who can't control their reactions or responses. We all have had to deal with random assholes, that's life. But we don't deal with it by acting out ourselves. If I get in a bar fight with someone, it's not acceptable, even if the other guy "provoked" me. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the assholes, and surely the police should have to hold themselves to an even higher standard.

jawns 3y ago
You're right. Police and government officials routinely describe First Amendment auditors as attempting to bait law enforcement and public servants, intentionally provoking them into violating their rights. But baiting is when you entice a person to do something wrong by offering them some kind of incentive. And it has to be something they wouldn't otherwise do unless incentivized. Thus, you can't "bait" a law enforcement officer by simply engaging in constitutionally protected conduct, unless the argument from police is that officers just can't restrain themselves from violating people's civil rights when those rights are exercised. In fact, in one of Reyes's encounters with the NYPD that led to an unlawful arrest, one of the officers told him afterward, "You wanted this to happen," and Reyes responded, incredulously, "I wanted you to violate my rights and take away my freedom?" No, he wanted to be able to go about his business without being arrested -- which he was later able to do after this court ruling went into effect.
- tehwebguy 3y ago
  Exactly — if police want most audits to stop they can simply act right. There is little reason for people to watch a video of police not reacting.
jstarfish 3y ago
Sounds like the solution is to come down hard on Agent Provocateurs. You're victim blaming big-time. They're on the receiving end of bullshit and cannot opt out of it, but we'll condemn them for fucking up their response? I'm the most cool-headed person I know and I had to talk a neighbor down from kicking my ass on camera (and in front of my own child) just yesterday. It took a superhuman amount of restraint to not even raise my voice because the adrenaline factory was in overdrive on both sides, gearing up for a fight. The provocateur has an unfair advantage-- the element of uncertainty. Only they know they're not they're going to escalate. Defense is a losing game; it only takes one failure to anticipate a threat before you're dead or unconscious. In order to stay so calm, I had to embrace the possibility that I might actually -die- in that encounter if the guy pulled out a knife. I was armed myself, but didn't draw so as not to escalate. It's a position of vulnerability I should never have had to put myself in. Once the adrenaline rush subsided, I had to go take a fucking nap. Cops don't get that option; they're immediately dispatched to deal with the next asshole.