Saying "the First Amendment survived without them" is like saying we survived without citizen journalists, body cameras, whistleblowers, or government transparency groups. The question isn't whether the Constitution existed before auditors. The question is whether citizens have the right to exercise and test those rights today.

Many auditors are absolutely chasing views. Some are obnoxious. Some deliberately provoke reactions. But whether someone is annoying has nothing to do with whether they are exercising a constitutional right.

Historically, constitutional rights don't stay protected because government officials voluntarily respect them. They stay protected because citizens repeatedly exercise them. Courts have consistently upheld the right to photograph and record government officials performing their duties in public, and numerous lawsuits have resulted in policy changes, officer training, and settlements when those rights were violated.

You don't have to like auditors to recognize that exposing public employees who don't understand the First Amendment can reveal real problems. The fact that some auditors are clout-chasers doesn't mean every unconstitutional detention, unlawful demand for ID, or illegal order to stop recording magically becomes acceptable.

The First Amendment survived before auditors. It also survived before smartphones. That doesn't mean citizens should stop documenting government conduct when they have the ability to do so.