What do you think about 1st Amendment Auditors?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Pros and Cons

Pros:

1. Promotes transparency: First Amendment auditors aim to promote transparency and accountability in law enforcement, which can help to build trust between police and the community.

2. Protects civil liberties: The First Amendment is an important aspect of our civil liberties, and First Amendment auditors are passionate about protecting those rights.

3. Encourages police professionalism: By documenting law enforcement interactions, First Amendment auditors can act as a check on any potential misconduct by police officers. This can serve to promote professionalism and accountability within the police force.

4. Educates the public: By sharing their videos and experiences online, First Amendment auditors can help to educate the public about their rights and the law.

Cons:

1. Can be confrontational: Some First Amendment auditors can be confrontational with law enforcement officers, which can escalate tense situations and potentially put themselves and others in danger.

2. Can interfere with police work: When First Amendment auditors refuse to comply with requests from law enforcement officers, this can interfere with police work and investigations.

3. Can perpetuate misinformation: Not all First Amendment auditors are well-versed in the law, and some may spread misinformation about what is allowed or not allowed under the First Amendment.

4. Can hinder community relations: Some police departments view First Amendment auditors as a nuisance, which can hinder community relations if auditors are seen as being unnecessarily antagonistic towards police officers.

jack

JulesKorngold said:

4. Can hinder community relations: Some police departments view First Amendment auditors as a nuisance, which can hinder community relations if auditors are seen as being unnecessarily antagonistic towards police officers.

Hello Jules:

Yeah..  I'm sure those guys who threw a bunch of tea off some boat weren't very popular either..  Freedom is scary.  People might read something they shouldn't, or might do something evil to their body.

excon

John_C_87

"To start, I don't hate them".....

Our mission is to document threats to the First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petition, all rights that are critical to self-governance in a democratic society. We agree with James Madison, author of the First Amendment, who recognized the “right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right.”

The mission statement describes an open process of deconstruction of the 1st Amendment state of the union with not only its own self-evident truth but with the Amendments connection to the Article of American Constitution as well. It goes on to describe a agreement between the establishment and a person who is legally been declared dead for some time, I question the principle behind that as nothing but political. To be clear Jack are you looking for insite or opinion as your are asking for the debate topic question is clerly searching for opinion in a debate and i question that tatic.

The team assembled is impressive and by all acounts a collection of experience well skilled in practice of law, and laws. We have often touched on the assembly of Constitutional Right before in debates of Amendment, or not. Legislation law Federal or State is clearly not Constitutional Right as is the lower of the two standards set on governing under a well-regulated republic. A state has an Untied State in contributing and introducing more perfect legislation than law and choses to put in the work or not to put in the work required. I consider part of the problem legal counsel has taken this fact personally and by evidence presented in the form of Civil Rights litigation in a court, documents of court proceedings, and legislative of laws have moved to undermine the fact of such superiority. On a personal note of my own Executive Officer # 45 was not an elected President of the United States of America, and not a President of the United States of America, the executive officer # 45 is recognized for attempt at becoming a President while in Oval Office. It is the attempt of ruling in Roe Vs Wade which might be the most highly media covered or other attempts like 1st Amendment argument which for many reason that are not always self-evident in their connection to American Untied States Constitutional states of the union, thereof failed. Though is some circumstance had achieved an executive office objective and this type of objective though argued already by lawyers and council is under the superior principle of American Constitutional Right.

A concern of note is that James Madison believed in the liberty of religion and the freedom of speech and the freedom of press not the factual as written united state of the union freedom of speech, press, and religion as a self-evident truth, thus being part of the 1st Amendment state of the union. To be direct lawyers arguing law between each other is not the process of equality all men are created equal by their creator in legislative representative with legal background adhering to constitutional states of the union as representation to "We the people." The state of the union made in the 1st Amendment is only imperfect in its establishment between the meaning of the two liberty and free as they are applied to established justice and the other facts of ACP (American Constitutional Preamble). Is undermining the self-evident truth all men are created equal by their creator?

Just to be clear and not to reflect poorly on the practice of law in general as a single united state there is a motive why some in the legal profession might do more than wish to have changed the legal precedent of what is required for a man to act, prove, or be proven as a President of the United States of American. The reduction of legal precedent from constitutional to something as insignificant as a popular vote by constituents in legal context is a motive to disassociate the powers of Constitutional Right. One that was to hold legal Counsel equal to all men and to all women in politics service. A mistake made by England with parliament. As truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth all men are created equal by their creator constitutional preservation, defense, and service. Just as all women are to created equal by their creator constitutional preservation, defense, and service as Presadera.