Submitted by Leith Harrell, founder of Prokopton.
--
If you’ve seen even one First Amendment Audit, odds are that you have already formed an opinion about these so called “auditors." And, it’s probably a strong opinion - one way or the other.
First Amendment Audits, by their design, are disagreeable and contentious encounters. At best, auditors are difficult and insistent, drawing attention to themselves in public spaces and then demanding that their rights (as THEY understand them) be recognized and respected. At worst, they are rude and bellicose, cursing and insulting public employees at the slightest provocation.
First Amendment Audits strike at the heart of some very basic aspects of human nature. Though almost everyone has a smart phone with a camera today, none of us want to be filmed - without our permission - by a complete stranger. Also, no one likes to be told how to do their job, especially by people outside their organization.
And, particularly for law enforcement officers, being told “No” is a direct challenge to ones legitimate authority. These auditors must realize they aren’t going to make any friends acting this way, right? It seems they do, and they think it’s worth it.
Sean Paul Reyes is arguably one of the most active and far-reaching auditors in the country. His YouTube channel, Long Island Audit, showcases almost 500 audit videos, most averaging between 200,000-300,000 views. Reyes opens each of his audit videos with the same introduction, “… we are here today as always to peacefully exercise our First Amendment right to film in public and publicly accessible areas to promote transparency and accountability in our government and ensure that our public servants recognize our rights and treat us with respect.”
One has to admit, taken at face value, these are downright all-American goals.
Aren’t these guys just in it for the money?
It is true that there are significant financial incentives available to auditors who post their videos to social media platforms. And, anyone who has served the public for any length of time knows: humans respond to incentives. Through its advertising affiliates, YouTube pays the more prolific Frist Amendment Audit channels between 3-9 cents per view. That doesn’t sound like much, until you factor it over those hundreds of thousands of views.
Generate enough views, and now you’re making a living. Also, settlements and judgements from civil rights lawsuits can also generate large amounts, though the payoff will take years and will require finding an attorney to work the case through a complex and uncertain journey through the courts. In either case, there is money to be made in auditing, and money affects the way people behave.
In early 2023, I spent several hours in conversation over coffee with a pair of Central Florida based auditors, as part of my research for the First Amendment Audit course my company offers to government agencies here in Florida and the SouthEast. Based on that conversation, it was clear to me that these were serious people who believed in what they were doing.
That’s not to suggest that I agree with all of their conclusions nor do I approve of all their methods. Regardless of your point of view, I suggest that it is a mistake to dismiss auditors as insincere or phony. Don’t refer to their actions as a “game,” for instance. It’s going to grow the conflict rather than deescalating it, and it won’t play well for the camera. Like them or not, at least give them credit for sincerity and commitment to their convictions.
Auditors are mad at the cops and want to get even.
I think it’s highly likely that almost all auditors are moved to action after having some sort of negative encounters with police. Are they just angry ex-cons who want to get some pay back? Some probably are.
Is it possible that some were actually mistreated by police, maybe even had their rights violated? It would be disingenuous to argue that it never happens. What about the handful of auditors that are actually former cops, like Mark Dickinson of James Madison Audits and Abiyah Israel of We The People University? Are these disgruntled ex-cops trying to smear their former profession or activists working to expose the corruption that drove them out? Serpico or the Prince of the City?
So, what’s the bottom line? Are these “frauditors” or patriots? Should we take these people at their word or see them for what they really are? Neither. It doesn’t help you to get the job done either way.
Focus on WHAT they are doing and forget about the WHY. Focus on the auditor’s behavior exclusively. Don’t waste time or effort pondering their possible motives. You can never know for sure why they do what they do, and it really doesn’t matter.
Confine yourself to questions that will actually help: Does the auditor have the right to be here? Are they actually creating a disturbance, or is the complainant simply bothered by their constitutionally protected activity? Would you handle them differently if they weren’t filming?
I’m not suggesting that you don’t have the right to like or dislike things as you choose. This is America! We have the right to hold our preferences and prejudices as we see fit.
We don’t have the right to bring them with us on duty, though. The peace officer’s most basic function is to be the adult in the room: to maintain self-control, to deescalate others, and to make calm, rational decisions. Attempting to do this, while holding a negative attitude about “police agitators” in your mind, is working against your own interests.
That negative attitude will make itself known through your facial expressions and in your tone of voice. You will end up making the video that the auditor wants and not the video that you and your agency want.
For more than 2,000 years, Stoic philosophers like Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and Epictetus have taught us that it is not the things themselves (the audit) that upset or anger us. It’s our thoughts and attitudes toward the things (I hate audits) that create our emotions.
By that logic, it isn’t the auditors that upset us or make us angry. We make ourselves angry, by deciding that we don’t like the auditors or what they are doing. Train your thoughts, and you can control your emotions. It is that simple, but it does take a lot of work.
In the end, it’s well worth the effort. The alternative is to give others the power to influence and even control our emotions.
--
If you’ve seen even one First Amendment Audit, odds are that you have already formed an opinion about these so called “auditors." And, it’s probably a strong opinion - one way or the other.
First Amendment Audits, by their design, are disagreeable and contentious encounters. At best, auditors are difficult and insistent, drawing attention to themselves in public spaces and then demanding that their rights (as THEY understand them) be recognized and respected. At worst, they are rude and bellicose, cursing and insulting public employees at the slightest provocation.
First Amendment Audits strike at the heart of some very basic aspects of human nature. Though almost everyone has a smart phone with a camera today, none of us want to be filmed - without our permission - by a complete stranger. Also, no one likes to be told how to do their job, especially by people outside their organization.
And, particularly for law enforcement officers, being told “No” is a direct challenge to ones legitimate authority. These auditors must realize they aren’t going to make any friends acting this way, right? It seems they do, and they think it’s worth it.
Sean Paul Reyes is arguably one of the most active and far-reaching auditors in the country. His YouTube channel, Long Island Audit, showcases almost 500 audit videos, most averaging between 200,000-300,000 views. Reyes opens each of his audit videos with the same introduction, “… we are here today as always to peacefully exercise our First Amendment right to film in public and publicly accessible areas to promote transparency and accountability in our government and ensure that our public servants recognize our rights and treat us with respect.”
One has to admit, taken at face value, these are downright all-American goals.
Aren’t these guys just in it for the money?
It is true that there are significant financial incentives available to auditors who post their videos to social media platforms. And, anyone who has served the public for any length of time knows: humans respond to incentives. Through its advertising affiliates, YouTube pays the more prolific Frist Amendment Audit channels between 3-9 cents per view. That doesn’t sound like much, until you factor it over those hundreds of thousands of views.
Generate enough views, and now you’re making a living. Also, settlements and judgements from civil rights lawsuits can also generate large amounts, though the payoff will take years and will require finding an attorney to work the case through a complex and uncertain journey through the courts. In either case, there is money to be made in auditing, and money affects the way people behave.
In early 2023, I spent several hours in conversation over coffee with a pair of Central Florida based auditors, as part of my research for the First Amendment Audit course my company offers to government agencies here in Florida and the SouthEast. Based on that conversation, it was clear to me that these were serious people who believed in what they were doing.
That’s not to suggest that I agree with all of their conclusions nor do I approve of all their methods. Regardless of your point of view, I suggest that it is a mistake to dismiss auditors as insincere or phony. Don’t refer to their actions as a “game,” for instance. It’s going to grow the conflict rather than deescalating it, and it won’t play well for the camera. Like them or not, at least give them credit for sincerity and commitment to their convictions.
Auditors are mad at the cops and want to get even.
I think it’s highly likely that almost all auditors are moved to action after having some sort of negative encounters with police. Are they just angry ex-cons who want to get some pay back? Some probably are.
Is it possible that some were actually mistreated by police, maybe even had their rights violated? It would be disingenuous to argue that it never happens. What about the handful of auditors that are actually former cops, like Mark Dickinson of James Madison Audits and Abiyah Israel of We The People University? Are these disgruntled ex-cops trying to smear their former profession or activists working to expose the corruption that drove them out? Serpico or the Prince of the City?
So, what’s the bottom line? Are these “frauditors” or patriots? Should we take these people at their word or see them for what they really are? Neither. It doesn’t help you to get the job done either way.
Focus on WHAT they are doing and forget about the WHY. Focus on the auditor’s behavior exclusively. Don’t waste time or effort pondering their possible motives. You can never know for sure why they do what they do, and it really doesn’t matter.
Confine yourself to questions that will actually help: Does the auditor have the right to be here? Are they actually creating a disturbance, or is the complainant simply bothered by their constitutionally protected activity? Would you handle them differently if they weren’t filming?
I’m not suggesting that you don’t have the right to like or dislike things as you choose. This is America! We have the right to hold our preferences and prejudices as we see fit.
We don’t have the right to bring them with us on duty, though. The peace officer’s most basic function is to be the adult in the room: to maintain self-control, to deescalate others, and to make calm, rational decisions. Attempting to do this, while holding a negative attitude about “police agitators” in your mind, is working against your own interests.
That negative attitude will make itself known through your facial expressions and in your tone of voice. You will end up making the video that the auditor wants and not the video that you and your agency want.
For more than 2,000 years, Stoic philosophers like Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and Epictetus have taught us that it is not the things themselves (the audit) that upset or anger us. It’s our thoughts and attitudes toward the things (I hate audits) that create our emotions.
By that logic, it isn’t the auditors that upset us or make us angry. We make ourselves angry, by deciding that we don’t like the auditors or what they are doing. Train your thoughts, and you can control your emotions. It is that simple, but it does take a lot of work.
In the end, it’s well worth the effort. The alternative is to give others the power to influence and even control our emotions.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments