The most ironic reaction to First Amendment auditors

In the United States some people engage in so-called "First Amendment auditing", where they go to public places and public buildings with cameras in order to see if their right to film in public is respected by people, security guards, governmental workers and officials, and police officers.

Sometimes random people, and in a few cases even governmental workers, get all riled up about it, and start accosting the guy with the camera. And in the vast, vast majority of cases it's not like the auditor shoved his camera in someone's face, or put it against the window of a private home, or shoved it over the counter of a public office in order to film a computer screen, or anything of the sort. Most often the auditor was just either standing still or just strolling around calmly, without approaching anybody, without bothering anybody, and oftentimes even without targeting anybody particular with his camera.

Some people just ask the guy what he's doing, for whatever reason. (I honestly don't really understand why they are compelled to do so, especially if there's nothing at that place that belongs to or is somehow connected to the person questioning the activity. It's just some random guy, perhaps a tourist, filming in a public place. Why even approach him? What is it to them?)

Others can be a lot more hostile and even aggressive about it. In a few cases someone even physically assaults (or tries to) the auditor. Sometimes the auditor will defend himself with pepper spray in those situations (sometimes leading to quite funny videos.)

But do you know what's the funniest and silliest reaction that some auditors get from members of the public (and, sometimes, even governmental workers)? When that member of the public takes out his or her cellphone and starts filming the auditor with a very prominent and clear air of "oh, you are filming me without permission? Well, how do you like it if I film you without your permission?" As some kind of "revenge" of sorts, perhaps expecting some kind of hypocritical reaction from the auditor.

(Yes, sometimes someone, especially a governmental worker, can engage in a "camback" perhaps thinking that it's for security reasons, so that if something happens they have footage of the guy filming the place. However, in other cases it's extremely obvious that the person doing the "camback" is trying to engage in some kind of "well, how would you like it if I film you?" behavior.)

This becomes even more obvious and significantly more egregious, and perhaps even borderline illegal, when that person approaches the auditor and shoves the cellphone literally inches from the auditor's face, sometimes even going so far as to really reach and dodge and shove the cellphone from some gap between the auditor's arms and equipment in order to really shove it very close to the auditor's face. The pettiness and childishness of going this far for the "revenge" filming goes beyond ridiculous at this point.

Also, as mentioned, this kind of action might actually be at least borderline illegal. That's because, depending on the circumstances, it might be considered assault. ("Assault" does not necessarily require physical contact, which would be "assault and battery". Merely approaching a person in a threatening manner and trying to hit, or threatening to hit, the person, even if the hit doesn't make physical contact, can fulfill the legal definition of assault. And this is borderline approaching that, depending on how aggressively and forcefully the person is shoving the camera very close to the auditor's face.)

But the entire behavior, whether the other person approaches the auditor or not, is highly ironic. They don't like it when they are filmed without permission (some even outright claiming it's illegal), so they engage in childish petty "revenge" by doing the same to the auditor. It's just pathetic.