121
submitted 5 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

My wife and I watch a lot of the videos on youtube from these people. And the videos make me wonder if a lot of these people are true believers or if they're so desperate for youtube views that they're willing to get a permanent criminal record for the privilege. The same goes for the "first amendment auditors" or whatever those morons call themselves.

First, they all read from the exact same script. Every time. Once you watch one or two of them, they become so predictable that you could recite them verbatim. Heck, some of them literally grab notes and start reading from their notes. To me, this sounds less like an ideology and more like a bunch of morons saying "All I have to do is say this to a cop and I'll get 50,000 viewers on Youtube too?!?!? Sign me up!!!"

Second, they lose. Every time. But they still post their own videos. Why the hell would you spout SovCit nonsense, fail in spectacular fashion, and then post the video anyway? And then after that, why would you do it again and again? And why would you keep posting the videos, unless all you wanted was the attention?

Ever notice how these "sovereign citizens" only become "sovereign citizens" only after they have their licenses suspended, typically after multiple driving infractions, drug arrests, and DUIs? Funny how they "see the light" and use being a SovCit as justification to drive after they've burnt through all their legal options.

And then there's the fact that they literally advertise that they're breaking the law with those "Not for Hire" bumper stickers and the fake "TRVLR" or "PRIVATE" license plates. If the real goal is to just "travel" from point A to B undisturbed, why the hell are you essentially begging cops to pull you over by plastering this crap on your car?

And if they don't believe in US law, why do they pull over in the first place? If they think they're out of the reach of law enforcement, why are they pulling over for it? Why are they showing up to court cases if they feel the courts are invalid? Why are they using the (mostly fake) US Supreme Court cases they keep citing if they think the entire court system is invalid and doesn't apply to them anyway?

I could go on and on, because literally nothing about SovCits or 1A "auditors" makes the first bit of sense. But you get the idea. Maybe it's just me, but I see the SovCit movement as little more than a whole bunch of low-IQ morons who figure "Hey, I've already got a criminal record, what do I have to lose at this point?" and are just doing this for the Youtube views and whatever extra cash that generates.

I'd love to hear the viewpoints of anyone who's had to actually deal with these people in real life. Are these people true believers, or are they just in it for the attention?

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I have to believe most of them are scammers and attention/seekers trying to fleece a relatively few gullible fools

[-] Dearth@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Don't lump 1st amendment auditors with sovcits. 1a auditors believe in the constitution and are trying to show how police forces abuse the rights of the people.

Sovcits are selfish and delusional pedants who try to weasel out of the responsibilities of belonging to a society.

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

I would hardly count these people as "believers in the constitution" or exposing "how police forces abuse the rights of the people."

https://youtu.be/gPgo1N53fH0?si=yRgVbNQ5eeAz_RS_

https://youtu.be/uPrKYXnwORc?si=9580elfeT26-X658

https://youtu.be/oGocHyc4QRw?si=VFcxyS-bSPZVe0c8

These people are simply hiding behind their twisted interpretation of the first amendment to justify harassing people for youtube views.

[-] BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Every group has their assholes, I've seen plenty of them. But I've also seen plenty where the individual was being harassed or unlawfully detained or worse doing nothing more than practicing their constitutional rights.

My favorite is the guy walking around a police station parking lot video taping and photographing the vehicles. I don't remember if anyone confronts him beforehand, but the Chief comes out and basically offers to give the guy a tour, he understands he's not breaking any laws, etc.

Either way, there are legitimate first amendment auditors. I've never heard of a legitimate or successful sovereign citizen.

this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
121 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19096 readers
1159 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS