Story by Leighton Kwok
Illustration by Jayden Zumba

With the creation of the Bill of Rights, the main goal was to give citizens protection from the federal government overstepping its power. This ranges from the right to freedom of speech to the assurance of due process. But as the United States continues to progress and grow, what may have started as rules all in good faith has been abused and used to harass individuals. 

The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, religion, the press, petition, and peaceful assembly. Although not as commonly remembered, the First Amendment also covers the right to film or take photographs on public property and the right to all speech, unless it incites violence or promotes an unlawful act. 

Channels on YouTube and other platforms have started filming videos to raise awareness of police officers and other government officials abusing their power against citizens. They film in public spaces, assert their right to record, and document responses. In theory, this could legitimately expose government overreach and truly educate people. But as views started racking up and the need to stay relevant grew, these types of YouTube channels started taking a different approach. 

“Freedom of the Press,” a YouTube channel that has amassed more than 35,000 subscribers, has taken these parameters and played jump rope with them. They operate mainly in the South Pasadena area and claim to educate the public about constitutional rights. Filming unsuspecting shoppers outside of Trader Joe’s and South Pasadena residents bringing mail to the post office, the self-proclaimed “enforcers” deliberately provoke a reaction from people who simply want to be left alone. While they frame their actions as civic education, it is obvious that their behavior is crossing the line. 

The videos depict regular citizens going about their day until they notice cameras filming them. Some ask what the auditors are doing, but most mind their own business. Masked videographers proceed to zoom in on the individual, no matter the circumstance, follow the person to their car, and run up to the door window to film the individual. They purposely bring attention to the individual’s license plate and continue to film them as they drive off. 

Recording in a public area is one thing, but when these First Amendment auditors refuse to stop when asked, their content ceases to qualify as educational. It is exploitation, and it uses the Constitution as a shield for bullying behavior. And these “enforcers” know what they are doing — while filming, they cover their faces, indicating that they do not want to be associated with what they know to be indefensible content. The behaviors of following someone persistently, refusing to maintain a reasonable distance, and filming with the intent to profit from an individual’s reaction not only cross the legal line between education and harassment, but are morally inexcusable. 

While genuine civic education is valuable, there are countless ways to teach these concepts without targeting unwilling participants, such as promoting genuine transparency in governmental offices and attending protests. Minneapolis nurse, Alex Pretti, was fatally shot by an ICE agent after defending a woman being taken by the officers. Without members of the public exercising their First Amendment rights and filming the encounter, we would only have the federal government’s version of events, which does not correspond with the released video footage. Another example is when late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air for making political jokes; many people publicly spoke out and defended him, even if they did not support him. This allowed him to return to his show and exemplified how the First Amendment should be used. The distinction between this and the behavior of auditors is clear: education informs willing learners, while harassment targets unwilling victims.