First Amendment audits: comparing the arguments for the right to record on the street to arguments in case law

Abstract

Abstract This study compares arguments made on the streets during First Amendment audits (FAAs)—YouTubers who purposefully record the police—to the arguments made in the courts over the right to record. After examining FAAs on YouTube (N = 120), the results reveal that the arguments made on the streets reflect and differ from the arguments in case law. As such, FAAs offer insights and variations upon themes of arguments made in case law about the right to record. The results also show the police’s and public officials’ response to recording in public reflect the inconsistent holdings about the right to record in circuit court opinions. From these findings, I make a number of observations, which suggest that First Amendment auditors are well-versed in the law and can offer contributions to the legal debate over the right to record. I then address the expressive nature of recording by highlighting the auditor’s corporeal body in the situation over the mediated dialogue seen on YouTube. I conclude with the study’s implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.