>>192210, >>192211, >>192212, >>192213, >>192214, >>192215, >>192216
Cam Higby @camhigby - Tim, I respect you. I’ve frequently had your back when people have come for you.
But to be completely fair… you didn’t actually respond to my low tier argument. Change my mind
Parent Post:
Tim Pool @Timcast - The reason why I ask if youre getting any direct or indirect benefit is because this argument is so 'low order thinker' I can't reasonably believe you'd attempt such a vapid argument unless there was some benefit elsewhere
That and my team knows people who were offered money
Quoted Post:
Cam Higby @camhigby - I have already answered this question Tim, No. It is possible for people to hold positions and not be paid for them.
In response to the community note that has apparently been added here - the 1st amendment is not what allows me to film people on public without consent. It guarantees that the government won’t stop me from running stories.
The SCOTUS has established that there is no reasonable expectation to privacy in public and that what you expose to the public, is not subject to 4th amendment protections. I cannot be sued or jailed for filming a person in a public space without consent for that reason.
The 1st amendment does not establish this. It establishes nothing about guardrails for journalism. We however also know that if I filmed a person in their home without their knowledge or consent, I’d be toast. Totally open to jail and lawsuits - and justifiably so. The same goes for the government assuming they don’t have proper warrants.
https://x.com/camhigby/status/2095171342479802458

Cam Higby @camhigby - I am not
Parent Post:
BRANDONJOHNSONSJOHNSON @captaingoogle1 - You must be an investor because there is no way you are doubling down on this clear violation of the 4th amendment
https://x.com/camhigby/status/2095165797341577521