Slashdot Mirror
Man Protests TSA With Nudity
New submitter blindbat writes "John E. Brennon 'said he was fed up with being harassed by airport security stripped to his birthday suit while in an airport screening lane Tuesday evening and was arrested.'"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
now every time he applies for a job he will come up on the sex offender search
This man is a hero.
what's my new hero's /. UID?
Some passengers covered their eyes as well as their children's and retreated from the sight.
I just wanna know how many peek through the covered eyes?
"Do not strip until told to strip."
Did the TSA do a body cavity search before they called the cops?
I've got a cousin who loves to mess with people who mess with him. When telemarketers call, he tries to keep them on the line as long as possible, only to tell them at the end that he's not interested. When people try to push brochures or flyers on him, he grabs as many as he can carry, crumples them up in front of the sales drone, and throws them in the trash. He's quite clever and takes a great delight in his ingenuity (my favorite is when he goes off on telemarketers, yelling "I'm trying to masturbate here!!!").
His answer to the TSA pat-down? He starts acting like he's getting off on it and then hits on the TSA agent (male or female) at the end of it.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Let us declare April 17 as Airport Security Nudity Day.
When asked why, the answer is almost always: "It's 2014".
Liberty in your lifetime
Is there a law about taking Viagra and enjoying the patdown? Let the holiday start before take off. Not the best thing to do when wearing a Kilt I guess; but I don't claim this to be a wise idea.
In fact if everybody stood naked on the line, the security check will be faster.
We here at the TSA has been doing a spectacular job of undermining airport security and making a mockery of government policy in the wake of 9/11. we certainly dont need the help of airline passengers to continue this legacy, especially if in this case it takes all the fun out of clandestine patdowns and secret naked pictures. Now gentlemen, if you'll excuse me, i believe theres an 8 year old girl and an incontinent 72 year old diabetic that need some 'enhanced screening'
Good people go to bed earlier.
The TSA agents are acting as directed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_defense
Palm trees and 8
1. Seeing a naked man
2. Having their eyes covered up when a naked man is seen
I would much prefer to have my child see a naked man (and explain to her why he's doing it) rather than giving her the message "a naked body is a bad thing, something awful is happening, this man is evil". The naked man wouldn't bother her in the least anyway. Why make it so?
"His name was John E. Brennon"
"His name was John E. Brennon"
"His name was John E. Brennon..."
I bet there are plenty of criminals who feed their families with the money they make from their crimes. Yet somehow, that does not absolve them of responsibility for their actions. Why should the TSA workers, who are being paid to sexually assault members of the public, be treated any different? Nobody signs up to work for the TSA without knowing what that agency does.
Palm trees and 8
And also, the Internet is mystical??!!!
Yes, it is. Just because you or I grew up with the Net and have a good (if not spectacular) understanding of how it works, does not mean everyone, particularly those of my, or his, parents age understand it. To them it is mystical.
Put another way, when the "lost" tribe of the Amazon sees a plane or helicopter, to them it's mystical. How does that big silver bird stay up there without flapping its wings?
You and I know how it works, but they don't. They haven't grown up in the trappings of modern society. The same with this guys father. He didn't grow up with BBS, programming or anything else related to how modern telecommunications work.
It's this attitude which ticks me off when dealing with (some) people in the IT world. To them, everything is ho hum and they condescend to those who don't grok whatever the subject is. I'm sure if someone came along and started talking about a subject which you know nothing about, or care to know about, and they started rattling off this and that, to you it would seem mystical because you have no frame of reference.
It's one thing to make fun of people who, after repeatedly being told what to do or not do, still make the same computer mistake. It's quite another to go after people who admit they are ignorant of a subject. At least they're being honest about what they know and don't know.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Horrah for this man! We need to do EVERYTHING we can RIGHT NOW to defend and support his actions.
For those of you that do not remember Cindy Sheehan, she was a lone war protester, who was ridiculed initially, by the media, by officials, and everyone else, but she bravely kept it up and turned the country around to questioning the war instead of just being "rah rah, go usa"
This person now needs our support before he's thrown in jail and made to disappear. The media need to support him, NOT ridicule him, as I'm sure they will, assuming they cover this story AT ALL.
We need to take the fight up and shed light on it, make the media question the TSA, and whether we're over-reaching in our response to 9/11.
This dude has sacrificed himself for the rest of us. Don't let his sacrifice be in vain.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
why not protest this way; boycott air travel
I'm boycotting air travel. Perhaps you've read about me online on seen me on the news.
I am not a crackpot.
This is the only place I know of where you can be forced to expose yourself naked to others, be forced by law to allow strangers to grope you, then get arrested for indecent exposure.
or else!
Except that, of course, jury nullification only works if you get a clueful jury member who actually wants to do the right thing instead of believing the judge when he says: "Your only job is to determine if this man did or did not expose himself to the public in a public place."
I don't know what juris-dick-ion is on penis at Portland International or airports in general but Oregon has no obscenity laws due to the way the Oregon constitution is written. Since the arrest was made by Portland police it seems to indicate that this falls under local laws. The Oregon constitution's free speech language is why Portland has naked runs and naked bike rides every year without arrests. See State of Oregon v. Henry Unless they have evidence of "attempting to arouse sexual desire" this appears to be clearly protected under free speech under the Oregon constitution.
"Being naked in public in Portland is legal if it falls within the guidelines of ORS 163.465, which are included below. ORS 163.465. Public indecency
(1) A person commits the crime of public indecency if while in, or in view of, a public place the person performs:
(a) An act of sexual intercourse;
(b) An act of deviate sexual intercourse; or
(c) An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person."
You guys aren't going to have this fixed by the time I fly into the States in July, are you?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
And what lame apologist excuse will you use when the TSA is groping people at bus terminals, train stations, cruise ship terminals, and even at random stops along the nation's highways?
"If you don't like the TSA, never leave your house! That's what the internet is for!" Is that what you'll say?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
It also depends upon a jury member with background knowledge managing to make it through voir dire without getting disqualified as a juror, and the fact that he made it through not resulting in a mistrial.
In real trials, your lawyer usually isn't *allowed* to reveal to the jury *why* you presumably might have been motivated to do something, if the prosecution can convince the judge that doing so might incite the jury to find you innocent because it approved of your reasons or what you did, as opposed to believing whether or not you did it (regardless of motive). That's part of the reason why most defendants end up accepting plea bargains or not taking the stand in their own defense. Their attorney realizes that the defendant won't actually be *allowed* to say anything in his defense, and taking the stand will just give the prosecution an excuse to flog their metaphorically-bound+gagged defendant even harder.
That's why it's so suicidal to count upon "no jury would ever convict me" logic. 99 times out of 100, the jury will never be allowed to find out why they wouldn't otherwise be willing to convict you, and you won't be allowed to tell them. And if you do, you'll be sent back to square one and subjected to a new trial, and if you do it again, you'll start getting imprisoned for contempt each time you try. Few things suck more than being a juror on a case, witnessing a trial, quickly agreeing to what seems to be a straightforward 'guilty' verdict, walking out to the parking garage feeling warm & fuzzy about protecting democracy & freedom... then seeing on the news that you just destroyed someone's life by convicting him of a major crime for something that was an absurdly inflated charge initiated by something stupid and minor, pursued by a prosecutor whose only concern was keeping up his quota of convictions and having numbers to show he's "tough on crime".
Everyone hates "security" until their plane gets hijacked. Then the passengers gangstomp the hijackers to death, after which they still hate "security."
FTFY.
If that's the case, why would there not have been an arrest made in this case: http://kdvr.com/2012/04/10/woman-strips-naked-at-dia/
She wasn't even protesting TSA, and it's not clear to anyone why she even stripped naked. If the airports have their own obscenity laws, they certainly aren't being applied anywhere close to evenly.
In fact, that these events happened so recent to each other implies that if there is such a "law" inside the airports jurisdiction, they are selectively enforcing it with the man in Portland to suppress his freedom of expression.