Man Who Protested TSA By Stripping Is Acquitted By Judge

AbrasiveCat writes "In an update to an earlier Slashdot story, the Portland Oregon man who was arrested after stripping naked at a TSA checkpoint at Portland Airport was acquitted of indecent exposure charges. He successfully argued that he was protesting TSA actions, and his actions were protected speech under the Oregon Constitution."

Comments

not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

not going to touch that

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

...with a 6" pole

Re:not going to touch that

[kubernet3s]

that's what they said

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope he didn't.

Re:not going to touch that

[HermMunster]

What bothers me isn't that he was acquitted, but that he asked for a jury trial, a trial by his peers, and was denied. Generally a judge rules when there's a matter of law rather than a matter of fact that has to be determined. In this case he charged with a criminal offense and he therefore required a jury trial.

Re:not going to touch that

[Immerman]

Well, if he freely admits to the action then there's no question of facts for a jury to decide, is there? The question is entirely whether or not the action was legal based on the applicable laws, which as you point out is generally accepted to be the judge's domain.

Re:not going to touch that

[wisnoskij]

But not always, jury's have the right to ignore law and pass whatever sentence they wish, within reason.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if they're never seated.

Re:not going to touch that

[Fjandr]

While I'm generally in agreement with what you wrote (in regard to actual practice, if not theory), two things are of note. The first is in regard to the typical application of the judge as the finder of law, while the second is in regard to the practice of entering summary judgment when there is complete agreement on both sides as to the facts of the case.

Oregon if one of the four* US States where the State Constitution specifically protects the right of a jury to find in both matters of fact and in matters of law, though this is systematically ignored and jurors informed of the opposite in jury proceedings. Specifically: In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.
You would never know that being in jury selection though, as the state jury informational pamphlet states the exact opposite. By the Constitution the judge is only allowed to instruct the jury as to how the facts they find fit within the context of the law they determine to be controlling the criminal charges, if they determine such a controlling law to exist at all.

As to the decision by the judge to enter a summary judgment via a bench trial without the agreement of the defendant, the Oregon Constitution provides but a single, crystal-clear exception to the right to a jury trial in cases where it is protected: that written application be made by the defendant and be approved by the trial judge. In capital criminal cases, this exception is specifically disclaimed; no capital crime may be subject to a bench trial under any circumstance.

*The others being Maryland, Georgia, and Indiana.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't entitled to a jury trial if you are only accused of petty crimes.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury's pass verdicts, jury sentencing is something completely different and has nothing to do with Jury Nullification. When sentencing a verdict has already been passed and the jury must follow the sentencing guidelines for the crime. A little research shows only Oklahoma and Texas have true jury sentencing.

Re:not going to touch that

[Holi]

While the supreme court may agree with you I fail to see how they reached that verdict.

6th Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law

Article 3, Section 2
Article III, Section 2, provides that crimes, except impeachment cases, must be tried before a jury, unless the defendant waives his or her right. The trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress.

Can someone explain to me where this 6 month imprisonment waiver comes from. I can't see a lot of wiggle room in there.

Many states still require jury trials for all crimes, but I can't find a list.

Re:not going to touch that

[slashmydots]

He should have protested the lack of available jury trial by stripping naked in court. Then they'd have to hand him new charges for the same thing and deny him a jury trial for that. Just think, it would cause an endless loop that would cause the court system to blue screen lol.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only a constitutional right to a jury trial for felony charges or misdemeanors with a possible jail sentence of more than 6 months. It makes no difference whether it was a federal or state court, because the federal constitution sets this floor.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

Your concern would be more valid if the judge ruled against him, but the judge is well within his rights to deny him a jury trial if he intends to acquit him. He has a responsibility to the state too and he's not required to waste the state's money on a publicity stunt just because the guy wants it. If the guy really wants to push the issue, he can file a civil suit for wrongful arrest.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

Oregonian here and I live in Portland to boot. He wanted a jury trial but the DA charged him with an infraction not a misdemeanor. For infractions you only get a judge. In other words the charges were as severe as a speeding ticket.

Re:not going to touch that

[ThatsMyNick]

Mod up! I would be interested in learning too.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me to shake some of your misconceptions, and inform you that the jury may determine law and fact, and that could very well be the reason as to why the magistrate opted for disposing of the case. However, a more likely reason in this case is that a jury were to acquit anyway, and the establishment didn't want that precedent.

Do your research and you'll find out that most of your notion about the legal system are misplaced, but undoubtedly cultivated to your own detriment. As proof of the above, here is a charge delivered to the jury by Jay, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1, http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/1/case.html:

"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury; on questions of law it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court: for, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts, it is, on the other hand, presumable that the court is the best judge of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision."

However, don't confuse the above with a couple of other cases regarding the same manner initiated as bills in equity, rather than at law, meaining Common Law. There is no jury in equity cases, which is what they are seemingly fooling people into all the time.

Re:not going to touch that

[brentrad]

It's not that he was denied a jury trial. "Brennan didn't have the option of letting a jury decide the case because the prosecution dropped its pursuit of a conviction for misdemeanor public indecency. The prosecution is now seeking a conviction for a violation, which is similar to a speeding ticket." Violations don't have the option for a jury trial in Oregon.

This article gives more information:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/07/post_247.html

Re:not going to touch that

[brentrad]

Because the prosecution dropped its case to a violation, not a crime. It's not that he was denied a jury trial. "Brennan didn't have the option of letting a jury decide the case because the prosecution dropped its pursuit of a conviction for misdemeanor public indecency. The prosecution is now seeking a conviction for a violation, which is similar to a speeding ticket." Violations don't have the option for a jury trial in Oregon.

This article gives more information:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/07/post_247.html [oregonlive.com]

Re:not going to touch that

[similar_name]

That's what she said.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they don't have the RIGHT to do any such thing, any more than you have the "right" to go 80 in a 65. What juries have is the POWER to disregard the law and deliver a contrary verdict.

But juries don't pass sentences, and jury nullification isn't some invincible force that can derail a case.

Questions of law are never the jury's domain, so if there's no question of fact to present, there's no jury to weigh in. Saying "yeah, but sometimes the jury goes off the reservation and chooses not to follow the law" is not a counterargument to that.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

The prosecution is now seeking a conviction for a violation

Once in awhile it's refreshing to see the Internet go viral on some behavior being exhibited by a representative of government that really could stand to be corrected. I'll keep my fingers crossed that the attention of the Internet is drawn to that individual prosecutor.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury nullification is described as a 'de facto' right of juries... i.e., it's something they can do, just because of how they operate, but it's not a right that's explicitly given to them in law ('de jure').

Re:not going to touch that

[Immerman]

Ah, I wasn't aware of that, I'm glad to hear such places exist, even if the bureaucracy predictably tries to deny it. In that case I suppose the judge's refusal would give him solid grounds for an appeal, if for some reason he wished do so. Considering the verdict though it seems quite possible that the judge had already decided the verdict was clear-cut and that seating a jury would simply waste a lot of people's time without any possible benefit.

Re:not going to touch that

[Khyber]

"Well, if he freely admits to the action then there's no question of facts for a jury to decide, is there?"

That matters not one fucking bit. He requested a jury trial per his Constitutional Rights, PERIOD.

Whomever modded this informative is a fucking ill-educated fool.

This man needs to sue the shit out of the court system for denying him one of his rights.

Break the entire court system. We're talking a lawsuit so expensive the government will never try this again.

Re:not going to touch that

[Khyber]

"Questions of law are never the jury's domain"

Wrong. Ever hear of Jury Instructions?

They can question already-made 'laws' in the court system and say "FUCK YOU."

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

The sentence must be within the guideline for that crime. The jury has very little control - just an adjustment within the rules. You are not entitled to a trial by jury, just a trial. The jury is only there to decide issues of fact, not issues of law.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

>In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases

You have to understand, the issues for decision by the jury are provided to them - they can't just tackle any issue they want. Jury instructions are specific and mechanical. If the judge can manage the issue as a matter of law, then he/she need not pass it to the jury unless he/she wants to. That is why you don't see any issues as a matter of law given to the juries, it isn't "ignored", it is just not the role of the jury in most cases.

The jury is intended to be the finder of fact for cases where there is no clear result.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

Misdemeanor infractions in many states are handled as a form of civil charge by the state because they carry penalties that are not unduly burdensome. This is allowed. This is one area where engineers should not just run off and think they know the law because they read a few summaries online. IF a jury is instated, it is a jury of peers. It is not an guarantee, because many trials do not need a jury. The jury is only there to make determinations as to facts at issue as assigned by the court (the judge) - if the facts are present for interpretation, then a jury will receive them. The jury must work within that framework, and make determinations within those instructions. For example, in a criminal case of first degree murder where the law has been determined, the jury will be asked only to find: (1) if there is intent in the facts, and (2) the act of murder. The jury can't decide that it is some other legal charge, nor can they make findings as to other things in the case. Slashdot seems to think the jury is the real judge, when it couldn't be further from the truth.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow - fastest /. dupe ever!

Re:not going to touch that

[fatphil]

I'm curious about the chronological order - did they drop the misdemeanor charge only after he indicated that he expressed his right for a jury trial? If so, that's heading in a direction dangerously close to double jeopardy - the prosecution defaulted on the original charge, IMHO. They shouldn't be able to just have a second attempt at a conviction for the same action.

Re:not going to touch that

[BlueStrat]

He should have protested the lack of available jury trial by stripping naked in court. Then they'd have to hand him new charges for the same thing and deny him a jury trial for that. Just think, it would cause an endless loop that would cause the court system to blue screen lol.

[Austin Powers] The birds will love it! That's much more hip than those turtles that square Hawking cat rambles on about!

It's twigs-n-berries all the way down, baby, yeah! [/Austin Powers]

Strat

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

And judges have the right to toss a jury verdict.

Re:not going to touch that

[Grishnakh]

Maybe I'm missing something, but why would the guy want to do this, when the judge ruled in his favor? Maybe the judge agreed with him, wanted to strike a blow against the TSA, and wanted to avoid the risk of a jury of morons ruling against him. Why would he want to sue for a new trial and risk losing, or at best have them just rule the same way the judge ruled? Suing would make sense if he lost, but he didn't, he won. The way I see it, the court system worked fairly well here; the problem is the TSA and the actions of the Federal government; the court here has acted against that. Suing over this technicality isn't going to help the man's anti-TSA cause at all, and might just hurt it badly, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory so to speak.

Re:not going to touch that

[mcgrew]

Damn it, you two aliterates, that apostrophe doesn't belong there. Apostrophes are ONLY for posessives and contractions: "the jury's verdict doesn't make sense."

The plural of jury is juries, not jury's. Jury's means the jury owns something. Read a book once in a while. Get your GED. Come on, guys, slashdot is no place for high school dropouts.

Re:not going to touch that

[DanTheStone]

Damn it, you two aliterates

Please correct correctly.

Re:not going to touch that

[mhajicek]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

This is also true Federally, although not quite as explicitly as the a-four-mentioned states (wow, bad pun). Judges will sometimes threaten to hold juries in contempt if they do not find a defendant guilty, but in reality the jury is deciding the law. The forefathers wrote this into the US constitution, but weren't counting on the definition of "jury" changing. At the time of the writing of the constitution, it was common knowledge that a juror's job was to decide 2 things: the guilt of the accused and the correctness of the law. Both are on trial, not just the accused. It's sad that so few people know this can be done, and many juries are duped into upholding unconstitutional laws because they don't know they can do something about it.

Re:not going to touch that

[Khyber]

"Maybe I'm missing something, but why would the guy want to do this, when the judge ruled in his favor?"

Because he can now not be tried for that again, and he stands to gain money.

A violation of rights is still a violation of rights, no matter how you put it, even with a favorable ruling.

Re-read the Sixth Amendment, please.

Better yet, I'll quote it here:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Emphasis mine.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

within reason.

I know I promised, but I had my fingers crossed.

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

Then this is double jeopardy. They will keep trying him until you get a conviction. If that isn't prosecutorial misconduct I don't know what is.

Re:not going to touch that

[redlemming]

More fundamentally, James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights to be an open-ended document. The 9th Amendment provides for rights retained by the people, the 10th Amendment provides for rights reserved to the people. This was done to address the dual issues (raised by the Anti-Federalists, and likely to kill ratification of the Constitution) that a) there was no Bill of Rights and b) that any Bill of Rights would necessarily be incomplete.

By definition, rights retained by the people are "retained by the people", which to any reasonable person (i.e. one not being led astray by ignorance, brainwashing or conflict of interest), means they can't be stolen by any element or group within the government.

Legal professionals, as a class within society, are in a position of conflict with interest with respect to recognizing these rights "retained by the people".

A scary, complex, confusing, actually (or even just seemingly) contradictory legal system artificially increases the demand for the services of legal professionals, and a number of fundamental rights that could reasonably be asserted under the 9th or 10th Amendments would naturally work against the tendency for the legal system to be any or all of these things.

For example: the right to "reasonable conduct under reasonable circumstances", where "reasonable" is defined by the people, not by the government.

Another example: the right to not have one's time wasted by the government.

Within the general scope of that right, a more specific right can be asserted that one to not be subject to laws, procedures, practices, precedents, executive orders, court orders, rules, and/or policies that can reasonably be supposed to be the result of or to involve security paranoia.

Furthermore, a judge who violated such rights -- at any point in their careers -- could be reasonably considered to be disqualified from holding any position of public trust or engaging in the practice of law, as a result of violating his or her oath to uphold the Bill of Rights. This -- in and of itself -- creates an ethical conflict of interest that tends to work against judges recognizing the authority of these amendments, as it opens up their entire careers to scrutiny.

Hence, if a judge -- by definition a legal professional -- is denying a trial by jury in a case that could reasonably be supposed to involve rights arising under the 9th Amendment, then it necessarily follows that the case will be decided by someone in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to recognizing those rights.

On the other hand, most jury members would have no understanding at all of the Bill of Rights, so it seems we have a choice between ignorance or conflict of interest. I don't know which scares me more ...

Re:not going to touch that

[brentrad]

They didn't try him twice. The prosecutor decided what to charge him with, and decided instead of charging him with a "misdemeanor" or "felony" (where he'd obviously have the option for a jury trial), they instead decided to charge him with a "violation." A violation in Oregon is an offense like a traffic ticket, parking ticket, possession of a small amount of some drugs for personal use such as less than one ounce of marijuana, etc. Penalties for a violation generally just consist of a fine, can also include other penalties, but cannot include jail time.

Here's some more information about violations in Oregon:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/153.html

Re:not going to touch that

[hesaigo999ca]

This is because the judge knew it would be used as a precedent for other cases to come,
and did not want to be known as the judge who legalized nudity at airports...
all it did do though, is make him know as the judge without a backbone...

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the Judge was applying the 'Johnston" rule...

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

I think maybe the juries still out on that. I kid. Just trying to jury rig a response out of you.

Re:not going to touch that

[Grishnakh]

Only problem with that is that, as others have already pointed out, this wasn't a criminal prosecution, it was a violation (like a traffic ticket). So there was no violation of rights at all. You don't get a jury trial when you contest your traffic tickets either.

Re:not going to touch that

[Fjandr]

As am I. There are many things I enjoyed about living in Oregon, and that was one of them even though it was systematically ignored.

More than likely the judge decided to make it not worth the defendant's time to essentially tie up court resources for the purpose of publicity, yes.

All in all, a shrewd move, since at worst he would face a civil suit against the State which would be immediately subject to a bench trial (unless the guy stupidly asked for a remedy other than a jury trial), and the jury trial would take place as normal.

Re:not going to touch that

[Fjandr]

In general, yes, it should be overseen by someone adept in the matters of law. However, the point of that passage is that it always remains open as an option which the jury may visit at their discretion.

The removal of discretion is the point of contention, nothing more.

Re:not going to touch that

[Fjandr]

Yes, I would quite agree. I retained the scope I did because the matter of jury nullification in general is an issue requiring a larger investiture of time. In the case of Oregon, the facts are much more plainly stated and require little in the way of referencing to support the conclusion I asserted.

Re:not going to touch that

[Unknown Lamer]

Shouldn't, probably. Do? Yes.

Double Jeopardy doesn't come into play until the first witness in a trial has been sworn in. Up until that point, charges can be dropped, amended, wholesale changed, etc. It seems unfair, but think about e.g. someone being charged with manslaughter ("I was durnk occifer and that bike came out of nowhere") and the prosecution learning, before trial, that there was pre-meditation involved ("Liloaid drove me over the edge and I HAD TO DO IT"). Or the reverse.

Where it gets dirty is that the district attorney's office can continue your trial in some magical pre-trial state indefinitely, despite judge's orders that the trial go foward next time I-really-mean-it-this-time (unless the daily court session runs out of time before hearing your case, unless your lawyer has another court appearance before the prosecution feels like hearing it that day, unless they amend a couple of words in your charges, unless the fourth moon of Pluto is aligned with the Nemesis that day, ...).

Re:not going to touch that

[mcgrew]

Are you an aliterate? Look the word up in the dictionary. An aliterate is someone who knows how to read, but doesn't do so. To misquote Mark Twain, "An aliterate has no advantage over an illiterate."

Re:not going to touch that

[DanTheStone]

I looked it up prior to my other post, and I am not, but it seemed unlikely to be your intention (which seemed closer to Merriam-Webster meaning #2, "showing or marked by a lack of familiarity with language and literature").

Misplacing an apostrophe hardly seems like it would represent someone unwilling to read. But if that truly was your meaning, I salute you.

Re:not going to touch that

[Khyber]

You may request a jury trial on speeding tickets. I've done so before, and I've watched cases happen in that fashion. The judge doesn't like it, but infractions of traffic LAWS are criminal violations. You may ask for a jury trial.

Re:not going to touch that

[kubernet3s]

They're onto us, Sambo

Re:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury instructions inform the jury of the law to facilitate their findings of fact. Juries do not decide what the law is; they decide where the defendant falls into that grid. They can choose to disregard the law because they are an autonomous force, but that doesn't change their role as the finder of FACT and not of law.

Awesome!

[DarthBling]

This news makes me happy to live in Oregon!

And kudos to the judge for being sensible.

Re:Awesome!

[Hatta]

I wish I lived in Oregon. Any Oregon folk want to organize a naked day at the TSA?

Re:Awesome!

[masternerdguy]

I'll bring the cool whip.

Re:Awesome!

[sarysa]

I'll bring the cool hwip.

FTFY

Re:Awesome!

[sixtyeight]

With all the backscatter X-rays, they'll all be able to get a nice indoor tan too.

Re:Awesome!

[sconeu]

Thank you, Stewie.

Re:Awesome!

[slacka]

As an expat living in repressed China, this news makes me happy to be a free American. " He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin How many people do you know that have died from Terrorists? For me, NONE. But Cancer, Stupidity, Obesity, MANY. As an expat, the real threat I see to our freedom is the ignorant throwing away our freedom that our founding fathers died for, because they are scared of the terrorist buggy-man! Stop living in fear and start thinking!

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, Oregon's free speech laws are some of the best in the world.

See also Jennifer Moss

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people do you know that have died from Terrorists?

So what you're saying is that the counter-terrorism measures are working.

Re:Awesome!

[MightyMartian]

I'm not sure ol' Ben was referring to protesting by showing the world your dick, but hey, I get the sentiment!

Re:Awesome!

[MrNaz]

Lisa, I would like to buy your rock...

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

whatever

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

As an expat living in repressed China, this news makes me happy to be a free American.

What? The only difference is the guy was acquitted by the judge. Innocent Americans still have to submit to being searched without a warrant in naked form to travel (airplanes, border routes that are 100 miles wide), and the government doesn't give a shit about the freedom the founding fathers died for - they've made the border a constitution-free zone and the TSA won't even comply with court orders around their screening process.

The only thing you can say is that you have a lesser degree of repression.

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

It was Ben. He just might have been referring to just that.

Re:Awesome!

[oakgrove]

We should all just start stripping buck naked in the airport then. Fuck it. If everybody wasn't so pussy and would man up like this guy did maybe actual change would take place. They can't incarcerate us all!

Re:Awesome!

[Fjandr]

As an avowed nudist (in the fashion of the times, anyway), he probably would have approved.

Re:Awesome!

[cffrost]

I'm not sure ol' Ben was referring to protesting by showing the world your dick, but hey, I get the sentiment!

I'd bet Franklin would agree with me — the most distressing instances of publicly showcased dicks here are the blue-shirted ones DHS/TSA stick in peoples' faces.

Re:Awesome!

[jyx]

We should all just start stripping buck naked in the airport then. Fuck it. If everybody wasn't so pussy and would man up like this guy did maybe actual change would take place. They can't incarcerate us all!

No, but the can totally destroy the lives of the first few thousand or so. Remember, this guy still has to go through the 'secret' federal trials - who know what the hell is going to happen there.. (Secret trials - I cant believe we have got to this stage!)

So while a good portion of the population sees the TSA as an annoying but necessary, getting past that couple of thousand people required mark will be tricky.

Re:Awesome!

[dbcad7]

yes they can.. and they would save money on prison uniforms.

Re:Awesome!

[brentrad]

Naked Day was last weekend at the Oregon Country Fair. Yep I was there, and yep it was awesome like usual.

http://www.oregoncountryfair.org/photo_gallery.php

(There's no nudity in those galleries, but trust me there was plenty of nudity there. I love Oregon!)

Re:Awesome!

[psithurism]

maybe actual change would take place.

Yeah, soon the TSA would require that all passengers strip naked before entering the terminal area.

Though, now that I think about it that would probably save a lot of money on machines and training, while speeding up the security search process; let's do this!

Re:Awesome!

[517714]

You put a link "See also ..." to a notable nudist and there aren't pictures! What's the matter with you?

Re:Awesome!

[bill_mcgonigle]

We should all just start stripping buck naked in the airport then Fuck it.

"I just got in from the airport, and boy is my johnson tired."

Re:Awesome!

[chrismcb]

No, it is my anti-terrorist rock. It sits right next to my tiger repellent rock.

Re:Awesome!

[BeanThere]

Remember, this guy still has to go through the 'secret' federal trials

Your tax dollars hard at work. They could have just dropped the whole issue but I guess when the taxpayer foots the bill, you have an infinite prosecution budget, unlike us peons. Wonder how it's costing us taxpayers to go after this guy who was just defending our rights. It's sickening when you think about the multiple layers of moral violations here.

Re:Awesome!

[BlackPignouf]

I think you'll enjoy it :
http://bananenplanet.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/10-things-most-americans-dont-know-about-america/

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

And the counter-velociraptor measures are working just as well too.

Re:Awesome!

[RabidReindeer]

How many people do you know that have died from Terrorists?

So what you're saying is that the counter-terrorism measures are working.

As opposed to the "anti-psychopath-with-guns-and-bombs" measures?

More people got killed/injured in Denver today by a presumed US citizen than were killed all last year by foreign terrorists.

So I guess it's time to set up porno-scanners at the movie theatres.

Re:Awesome!

[SirGarlon]

They can't incarcerate us all!

Since we have to pass through a checkpoint to move about or out of the country, show our papers to get a job, and we're constantly under surveillance, from where I'm standing it looks like they already *have* incarcerated us all.

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

My uncle died at the Pentagon on Sept 11. Does that count?

Oh, I had a cousin who was killed by an IED in Afghanistan. I'm guessing that would count too. He was Special Forces.

Re:Awesome!

[Killjoy_NL]

Awwww so sweet, soulmates meeting on Slashdot, too bad you're posting anon, it could have been wonderful.

Re:Awesome!

[Grishnakh]

Scanners at theaters won't help; the gunman today kicked in one of the emergency exit doors from the outside.

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

They could just have everyone wear tights and leotards.

Re:Awesome!

[RabidReindeer]

Scanners at theaters won't help; the gunman today kicked in one of the emergency exit doors from the outside.

Hey! This is the Twenty-First Century. Weld them suckers shut. Got to keep everyone SAFE!

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

If he worked at the pentagon it means he did shit for the military or other freedom killing government agency. No sympathy. If your cousin was killed by an IED in Afghanistan, that means he did shit for the military. Again, no sympathy. You make choices, you suffer the consequences.

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds good to me.

The judge realised that he had nothing to hide....

[Anonymous Coward]

53A11BA115

Irony

[sixtyeight]

Now that he's established that it's protected speech, everyone can do it.

We can also protest the I.R.S. by throwing our Federal Reserve Notes into a big heap and setting fire to them, but I suspect we won't.

Re:Irony

[Githaron]

Except you have to live in Oregon.

Re:Irony

[SlashDev]

In theory your fed reserve note comment makes sense, in reality it would be impossible to implement now, not only the mass population uses those notes, the rest of the world does as well.

Re:Irony

[sixtyeight]

Why do people keep saying that? The court in Oregon where he did it ruled that it was protected speech.

That doesn't mean it can only be protected speech in Oregon. Do it in other states, and other states' courts will rule on it too.

Re:Irony

[Githaron]

You are almost guaranteed to be legally safe in Oregon. You are not in other states.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why do people keep saying that? The court in Oregon where he did it ruled that it was protected speech.

You don't understand how U.S. law works. What do you mean by "The Court"? The legal system is tiered and disperate. This was a county ruling (due to it being a local civil charge). So try to keep up. If another court were to rule differently (which is not unlikely), that ruling could be escalated to an appellate court to validate one of the decisions (either the appeal or the prior decision, effectively invalidating the other). Did you sleep through high school? You might want to get some basic understanding of what you're railing against, before promoting that little crowdfunding project.

Re:Irony

[makisupa]

It's not so simple - Oregon's constitution grants more speech protection than our federal constitution. The fact that the finding specifically cites the Oregon rather than federal constitution seems telling to me.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people keep saying that? The court in Oregon where he did it ruled that it was protected speech.

From what I understand, Oregon does not have indecency laws (or has looser indecency laws?) so stripping naked is not a problem. Other states do, and you can still suffer for "indecent exposure"

Re:Irony

[DarthBling]

I can't comment about other states, but Oregon generally doesn't have a problem if you are naked.

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.

Combined this with section 8 from the Oregon constitution:

Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.

And you have a pretty strong case why John Brennan's naked TSA protest was not be violating the public indecency statue.

I could be mistaken, but other states may have a problem if you're naked for any reason. This might be why many people say, "Except you have to live in Oregon".

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course Oregon has indecency laws. What do think his trial was about?

Re:Irony

[pclminion]

Why do people keep saying that? The court in Oregon where he did it ruled that it was protected speech. That doesn't mean it can only be protected speech in Oregon. Do it in other states, and other states' courts will rule on it too.

Oregon is a bit, er, different. The Supreme Court of Oregon has explicitly ruled that erotic/sexual displays are a form of protected speech. That ruling has led to Oregon's status as the strip club capital of the USA, with more strip clubs per capita than anywhere else, including Las Vegas (though most of them are in the Portland area). Portland has an annual Naked Bike Ride event. The police who follow the riders are there to protect them, not arrest them.

That's not to say some other state couldn't take the same view of things, but this decision is very typically an Oregonian decision. There is a clear distinction between lewdness and nudity, and Oregonians for the most part know how to make this distinction.

Re:Irony

[FiloEleven]

The Supreme Court of Oregon has explicitly ruled that erotic/sexual displays are a form of protected speech.

Is this accurate? The sibling to the parent comment quotes the law in question which specifically states that public indecency is among other things,

An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person.

So it appears to me that the reason he was not convicted is precisely because his intent was not to be erotic or sexual, only nude. And that makes perfect sense given the context of the protest--he was making explicit* the fact that the scanners essentially nudify everyone, at least from the vantage point of the Viewing Room, and that the TSA is quite invasive in general. Oregon recognizes that not every naked person is necessarily being sexual, and it'd be nice if the rest of the country caught up.

*In this case, the pun happens also to be the most accurate description.

Re:Irony

[LurkerXXX]

I could be mistaken, but other states may have a problem if you're naked for any reason.

You are not mistaken. Many states will label you as a sex offender if you take a leak in the corner of a parking lot after a late night partying.

Re:Irony

[fustakrakich]

No, free speech rights are just better protected in Oregon. You don't get any better than "no law" as unconditionally spelled out in the constitution. The problem is a supreme court that won't enforce it.

Re:Irony

[Fjandr]

And of course it gets even more complex, since the Oregon ruling was regarding Oregon law. Rulings in other states, even if they got to the State appellate level, would not affect it. Neither, in all likelihood, would any ruling in a Federal Appellate court as it's unlikely that a case could come about regarding these issues that would bring about a Federal/State contest under the Supremacy Clause (for too many and complex reasons to be worth attempting to list).

Re:Irony

[Smallpond]

No, free speech rights are just better protected in Oregon. You don't get any better than "no law" as unconditionally spelled out in the constitution. The problem is a supreme court that won't enforce it.

Good thing that everyone agrees on the meaning and interpretation of every word in the Constitution. I wonder why we even bother having a Supreme Court?

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Portland has an annual Naked Bike Ride event

Note to self: Don't buy a used bike in Portland.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a state court and the ruling was based off the state constitution so yeah Oregon only.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory your fed reserve note comment makes sense, in reality it would be impossible to implement now, not only the mass population uses those notes, the rest of the world does as well.

So then, yet another among countless cases where the DUMB MASSES are holding back the more intelligent among us?

Wake me up when there's news.

Re:Irony

[fustakrakich]

I wonder why we even bother having a Supreme Court?

Well, the other amendments contain more fuzzy words like 'unreasonable searches and seizures', 'probable cause', 'just compensation',... what is 'excessive'? 'cruel and unusual'? But the first amendment contains none of that. There are no weasel words like 'commercial' or 'political' speech that the courts are exploiting. There is nothing in the constitution permitting the classification of speech that would be exempt from the amendment. There is no other statute that stands so absolute, requiring no 'clarification'.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people keep saying that? The court in Oregon where he did it ruled that it was protected speech.

From what I understand, Oregon does not have indecency laws (or has looser indecency laws?) so stripping naked is not a problem. Other states do, and you can still suffer for "indecent exposure"

Reading /. for as long as I have, I automatically read looser as loser, because I know 99% of the time I see looser it is used improperly.

Thank you for being the 1%!

Re:Irony

[brentrad]

Portland Oregon actually has a higher per capita number of strip clubs than churches. Yes, I'm very proud of this fact. :)

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

if you take a leak in the corner of a parking lot after a late night partying

Don't worry LurkerXXX, we believe you.

Re:Irony

[godrik]

"Portland has an annual Naked Bike Ride event. The police who follow the riders are there to protect them, not arrest them."

No, the police just go to have the best spot! That's why everybody call them 'pigs'!

Re:Irony

[BeanThere]

The disagreements on the meaning words like "no law" are a matter of deliberate malintent, not mere "differences in interpretation". You can't "interpret" "no law" in multiple ways, because it isn't even remotely ambiguous. "No law" can only be read one way, no matter how bad your English is.

Re:Irony

[chrismcb]

Now that he's established that it's protected speech, everyone can do it.

This has been established by others in the past. Naked protests are a form of protected speech.

Re:Irony

[sixtyeight]

If I were demeaning to people, as you are, I'd probably be posting anonymously as well.

Rather than leaping to the conclusion that I "don't understand how U.S. law works" and spewing basic reiterations of the legal system at me, try addressing the actual content of my post.

What do you mean by "The Court"?

Well, what I'd written was:

The court in Oregon where he did it ruled that it was protected speech.

And what I'd meant by it was: The court that ruled on it. Which was located in Oregon. Which is where he did it. They ruled that it was protected speech.

Then I went on to make my point regarding that. How are you able to give me a remedial summary of U.S. court jurisdiction when English poses such a problem for you?

Re:Irony

[EuclideanSilence]

Now if they would just get rid of the "but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right" part, it might actually mean something.

Yes it is scary having a true right to speech. That's what "land of the brave" meant. They should just make the unqualified right:
"No power of government may ever designate any information to be punishable to communicate."

I suspect that with the last phrase they were trying to say was "but the coincidental fact that someone is offering opinion may not be used to protect them from correlating crimes that they may be committing." So that if a person screams their opinion into your ear and breaks your eardrum, they can't claim that it was protected. Unfortunately, legal minds haven't yet realized that a right to prevent one action from being illegal doesn't necessarily abjure a person of legal responsibility for simultaneous actions.

The last phrase in the above section 8 will be used as an excuse to find exceptions to freedom of speech.

Re:Irony

[sixtyeight]

Portland Oregon actually has a higher per capita number of strip clubs than churches. Yes, I'm very proud of this fact. :)

Then it's only a matter of time before one acquires the other. Imagine the crossover opportunities.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Meaning that not even Cole's Law can prevent your right to free speech as worded in the Constitution.

ANAL! FTW

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

>And you have a pretty strong case why John Brennan's naked TSA protest was not be violating the public indecency statue.

No, because you haven't done any case law research on similar holdings for these issues, and you aren't aware of the details of these laws. All freedom of speech is limited, for example most states do not allow free speech that incites public disturbances, or that is in the state interest to be held by time, place and manner. You have no idea what the current application looks like in Oregon. Everyone on Slashdot is a self-proclaimed expert on legal issues and patents, but have no clue how either one are applied.

Re:Irony

[brentrad]

Well there is the Sisters Of Perpetual Indulgence...

http://www.portlandsisters.net/

Re:Irony

[thirtyfour]

The difference is that Oregon's constitution says "expression" rather than "speech." One could reasonably argue that getting naked doesn't qualify as "speech," but it's much harder to argue that it's not a form of expression.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Portland has an annual Naked Bike Ride event

Note to self: Don't buy a used bike in Portland.

Especially one without a seat.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome!

More comments like this and we can reclaim the internet destination from Reddit.

Protesting, hmmmm...

[Volshebnyj Molotok]

Guess that's better than temporary insanity...

free speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that thinks that the interpretation of free speech is overly broad? I'm no huge fan of indecency laws, but I really don't see the stripping part as having much to do about speech.

Re:free speech?

[sarysa]

I consider it free speech on the following grounds: It essentially says "we know what the TSA really wants, so lets skip all the foreplay and pretense." It's like a jester mocking the king, only this king can't just add another head to his collection.

Re:free speech?

[zwede]

Not half as indecent as what the TSA does.

Re:free speech?

[king neckbeard]

No, it makes perfect sense as a political statement about an agency that wants to grope you or see your naked profile

Re:free speech?

[Raenex]

Am I the only one that thinks that the interpretation of free speech is overly broad?

No, you're not the only one. Burning the flag is also free speech, but burning the flag in violation of fire codes doesn't magically become protected. We also have freedom of religion, but when your religion conflicts with the laws the laws take precedent.

Re:free speech?

[sjames]

Speech need not be sounds coming out of your mouth. It can be in the form of the written word, signing, paintings, or interpretive dance. His speech took the form of performance art.

His intent was to communicate a message. Therefor it was speech.

Re:free speech?

[yotto]

Am I the only one that thinks that the interpretation of free speech is overly broad?

No, you're not the only one. Burning the flag is also free speech, but burning the flag in violation of fire codes doesn't magically become protected. We also have freedom of religion, but when your religion conflicts with the laws the laws take precedent.

I hate to be that guy, but the laws take precedence. "Precedent" is a completely different word that happens to relate to laws, but not in the way you meant.

Re:free speech?

[RazzleDazzle]

I sense a bit of sarcasm. When discussing the TSA Freedom Fondle, you need to show more respect. Hey, you blond chick, yes, you with the big frontal lobes... care for a private "security" screening?

Re:free speech?

[Raenex]

Thanks for the correction.

Re:free speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to be that guy, but the laws take precedence. "Precedent" is a completely different word that happens to relate to laws, but not in the way you meant.

I hate to be that guy, but you should have said, "I don't think that word means what you think it does."

Re:free speech?

[fustakrakich]

Am I the only one that thinks that the interpretation of free speech is overly broad?

No, sadly, you're not. And please, don't quibble about the 'indecency' aspect. We don't want a bunch of meddlesome ninnies deciding what is 'indecent'.

Re:free speech?

[Fjandr]

The difference is one is a violation of incredibly subjective standards while the example of flag burning can, in some cases, cause a very real and articulable risk to life, health, and/or property. When judged against subjective standards, the standard of proof should be very high to find someone guilty of indecent behavior over a political expression of extreme displeasure which posed zero risk to anyone at any time.

As for religion, even though I am a-religious, I thoroughly believe that restrictions on religious activity should be limited strictly to cases where there is very real and articulable risk to life, health, and/or property. Even then, it should be limited to risk to those who have not, or cannot, consent to undertake those risks.

Re:free speech?

[mooingyak]

Am I the only one that thinks that the interpretation of free speech is overly broad?

No, you're not the only one. Burning the flag is also free speech, but burning the flag in violation of fire codes doesn't magically become protected. We also have freedom of religion, but when your religion conflicts with the laws the laws take precedent.

If he was stripping naked to protest high gasoline prices or the war in wherever, I'd agree. But here, the stripping naked part was an essential part of the statement.

Re:free speech?

[Raenex]

The difference is one is a violation of incredibly subjective standards while the example of flag burning can, in some cases, cause a very real and articulable risk to life, health, and/or property.

I agree indecency standards are subjective, but if they are to have any meaning you can't just let people parade around naked in public as a form of protest.

As for religion, even though I am a-religious, I thoroughly believe that restrictions on religious activity should be limited strictly to cases where there is very real and articulable risk to life, health, and/or property.

Religious activity should be given no more, and no less, consideration than any other activity under the law. Doing otherwise violates the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Re:free speech?

[Fjandr]

First, indecency standards can certainly still have meaning, because indecency is invariably derived from intent. Actually, much of the criminal law in the USA hinges on intent.

As to religious activity being given exactly the same consideration to any other activity under the law, I believe you have misread both the letter and the intent of that amendment. If it truly meant what you claim it to mean, the very act of mentioning religion specifically would be utterly redundant. A complete lack of mention would place it on equal footing with all other activity with respect to the law. As the case law surrounding the Amish clearly shows, this is not, and never has been, the case in US jurisprudence.

Re:free speech?

[BeanThere]

You're confused. You're conflating two issues. Burning the flag in violation of fire codes is still free speech and protected as such. However, it may also violate fire codes if done dangerously. It's NOT that burning a flag in violation of fire codes somehow literally "becomes speech that is actually allowed to be censored". It remains that nobody has the right to censor your free speech in any circumstance - they could not prosecute the *speech* component of the flag-burning - but people do have the right to not be placed at a risk of being harmed by your burning things in dangerous ways. But if they prosecute you, it won't be for "speech" - it will be for endangering them. To claim that this literally means that freedom of speech "has its limits" is disingenuous.

Re:free speech?

[Raenex]

First, indecency standards can certainly still have meaning, because indecency is invariably derived from intent.

When it comes to somebody's boobs or genitalia hanging out, the intent really doesn't matter. Whether you're performing a naked art show in the park or protesting, it's the kind of thing society has decided that they don't want to be confronted with in public.

If it truly meant what you claim it to mean, the very act of mentioning religion specifically would be utterly redundant.

No, it wouldn't. That same argument was made for all the Bill of Rights, but the Founders eventually decided that it was best to be explicit in highlighting the most common and important rights that are trampled on. Reference.

As the case law surrounding the Amish clearly shows, this is not, and never has been, the case in US jurisprudence.

I'm not sure what law you are referring to, but US case law is a checkerboard of inconsistent and unprincipled rulings. Name a principle of law, and I'm sure I can find two inconsistent interpretations of it.

And regardless of what the courts say, I'm talking about what should be the case based on what the Constitution says. The Constitution has been stretched and abused beyond recognition in many aspects (like the Commerce Clause).

Re:free speech?

[Raenex]

Burning the flag in violation of fire codes is still free speech and protected as such.

So where's your citation that you can violate fire codes while burning the flag?

But if they prosecute you, it won't be for "speech" - it will be for endangering them.

It would be for violating fire codes, which indeed are there for safety reasons. I never said otherwise.

To claim that this literally means that freedom of speech "has its limits" is disingenuous.

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. All I said was that you can't legally violate laws in the name of free speech. Obviously if the law is aimed at curbing free speech that's a Constitutional matter, but in general, your free speech has to comport with the law.

Re:free speech?

[BeanThere]

So where's your citation that you can violate fire codes while burning the flag?

Please do not revert to blatant lies about my position. You're just not getting it. Your inability to get my point does not invalidate it, and does not permit you to blatantly lie about my point, just because you failed to understand it. Please read my post carefully again, until you understand the point I am making. I have in fact explained myself quite clearly, however, it is a bit of a subtle point - if you are not quite bright, you will have to use the little grey cells.

Re:free speech?

[BeanThere]

Just a general question, if you don't understand what someone wrote, why is the default response always to just make up clueless false and incorrect assumptions (with which you embarrass yourself) and then bash the other party? Is this an ego thing? How hard is it to just say, "I'm sorry, I don't understand, can you try explain it further?"

Re:free speech?

[Raenex]

I'm afraid I don't get your point, because if you aren't claiming that you can violate fire codes by burning the flag in the name of free speech, then you have contradicted nothing I said, and you need to apply that same careful reading to my post.

Re:free speech?

[Raenex]

Probably because you misinterpreted my post and called me "confused". So let's see how hard it is for you to either say "sorry" for your original post, or explain just what you are talking about.

Re:free speech?

[Fjandr]

On the first point, we'll agree to disagree. Fortunately for me, the law is increasingly on the side of my interpretation.

On the second, they made the implicit explicit, in that there were certain classes of behavior the government were to have no power over. Yes, the concept of the Bill of Rights was a redundancy. However, that's not the same redundancy to which I was referring. More of a corollary, since your assertion implied that, rather than being protected activities, they are actually not rights at all.

Even though the topic was speech rather than religion, both are covered in the same manner under the First Amendment. As such, I'll use Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) as an appropriate reference covering both of the above general points.

Rights are, by their very definition, unequal in treatment before the law when compared to non-rights. There are matters which may be treated by the law and matters which may not. To argue those classes are the same is absurd. Your assertion that rights of worship are to be treated as any other ordinary activity before the law implies that they have no superior protection. In that they are mentioned specifically in the Bill of Rights, the assertion further implies the Bill of Rights is no further protection over any other ordinary activity. This is what makes it a redundancy, based on the extensions of the logic presented. Since I'm guessing that wasn't your intent based on what you've said in your most recent response, I'm not sure what you actually were intending. However, the extended logic based on what you said makes it appear as though there is inconsistency in how you view different rights, or pe

On the third point, I was not referring to a specific law, but rather to a large body of religious exceptions to laws which have none written into them. All as a result of successful suits brought by the Amish which have resulted in USSC decisions invalidating them from being enforced on religious grounds. I'll pick a random one and go with Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), though there are many others I'm familiar with and likely dozens more I'm not. Much of the religious case law in newer, since during the earlier years of the Republic there were relatively few uses of Federal legislative power attempting to force religious behavior to align with legislative goals. More often those were State laws or extra-judicial actions. The conflicts started occurring as society progressed further and certain groups did not. This is most notable among the Amish in regard to both their relatively large numbers, large land ownership, absolute refusal to integrate with outside society any more than they absolutely must, and willingness to fight legally when their way of life is threatened. It's only been relatively recently that the divergence has become large enough to cause civil society to put pressure on them to change, and the courts have decided that their rights to worship as they have for as long as they've existed are to be impinged only to the extent that public safety dictates. I could follow the chain of controlling cases back to the beginning of the USA, but this has become long enough already.

I agree with you in regard to the over-reach and abuse in many aspects, but this is not in any way one of them. It's not even a Constitutional issue. In cases where it is, there is no right to be free from indecency, since indecency is in the eye of the beholder. It is by its very definition based on societal mores, which are subject to change over time. The ability to say and do shocking things in protest, however, has always been respected as protected as long as people have been discussing legal theory in the USA.

I'm also well aware of the patchwork nature of US case law, but once it reaches the Supreme Court level the inconsistencies tend to become mu

Re:free speech?

[Raenex]

Rights are, by their very definition, unequal in treatment before the law when compared to non-rights.

This particular right comes in a pair. You are only focused on half of it, and ignoring the "respecting an establishment of religion" part.

You have to look at the Constitution in context, where the Founders were well aware of particular religions being targeted and other favored by government. What the founders were trying to prevent were both cases. By carving out niches for religious activities in otherwise secular laws, government is respecting establishments of religion. As an atheist, it doesn't sit right with me.

I'll pick a random one and go with Wisconsin v. Yoder

Thanks for the reference. It's interesting reading, but as I've already said I don't agree with the Court's position.

Re:free speech?

[Fjandr]

I didn't ignore it, though the address was implicit rather than explicit.

That take on the Establishment Clause fits the definition of the redundancy of non-right assertion I described earlier. If it meant that they were to have a place neither above nor below the exercise of a non-right it would not fit with the spirit of the Bill of Rights, which was intended quite clearly to specifically enumerate certain things over which Congress should have no power (or specifically limited power).

That is a very Constructionist view on the Establishment Clause, wherein it is a reading of semantic exactness absent any context. From such a view follows that no law may mention an establishment of religion, nor may a religious argument be used as a defense in any matter. As a result, what further follows is that any religion may be outlawed, or any other religion may be supported, by careful crafting of legislation absent particular key words. This was clearly not the intent, and the Absurdity Doctrine should be used liberally when such a view is taken. A good read on that particular subject is United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 74 U. S. 486 (1868). While it does not address absurdity in the strict reading of legislation in religious terms, it may be generally applied to any strict reading of legal wording and why such interpretations should be viewed, at best, with suspicion.

I believe your views on religion have clouded your perspective to the same degree that a Christian fundamentalist, who would argue for the Establishment Clause not allowing the promotion of a particular brand of Christianity, but allowing for the promotion of Christianity in general as it is not a "particular religion."

I am not saying that religious rights should overrule legitimate issues of public safety, as I've said before, because that does not violate the neutrality principles of doing the least harm in the pursuit of protecting the rights of all. However, when specific behavior is targeted which was not previously illegal, it amounts to using the legislature to pressure the religious to change their practices to satisfy societal mores. It is an undue burden, even if a religion is not specifically mentioned, and has no compelling societal interest which mandates those people give up a previously legal practice. If you eliminate the undue burden test, it becomes trivially easy to play religious favorites with legislation, and runs directly counter to the concept of neutrality.

Re:free speech?

[Raenex]

That is a very Constructionist view on the Establishment Clause, wherein it is a reading of semantic exactness absent any context.

Um, I've been trying to bring context into this. First, in establishing that there are two sides to the right of religion, and second, getting at the motivation of the Founders.

As a result, what further follows is that any religion may be outlawed, or any other religion may be supported, by careful crafting of legislation absent particular key words.

Absolutely not, as the courts are there to prevent laws that are written with the intent to hinder or help religion. What you are arguing is something like the child putting his finger in your face and saying, "I'm not touching you!" The courts take a dim view on these shenanigans, and I'm not advocating this kind of interpretation at all.

What I'm saying is that special privileges should not be afforded to religion, where a secular law with no basis in religion (and not just your pedantic keyword game) should apply equally to all.

Re:free speech?

[Fjandr]

I'm not sure how to reconcile the things you say you are advocating with those you disclaim advocating.

If a religion may be forced to adopt social customs which are viewed by society at large as newly requisite, how do you argue the 1st Amendment provides any protection to religious worship at all?

Re:free speech?

[Raenex]

If a religion may be forced to adopt social customs which are viewed by society at large as newly requisite, how do you argue the 1st Amendment provides any protection to religious worship at all?

I don't know what is so difficult about the concept, but perhaps it's because you are taking it as an all-or-nothing approach. If there's evidence that a law was crafted for or against some religion, then it should be struck down. It's that simple, and that provides an immense amount of protection compared to governments where religions are persecuted.

Re:free speech?

[Fjandr]

So is your contention that religions should be required to adopt any legislatively-mandated social convention so long as it is not targeted at a religious organization in particular then? I am still not sure where you are actually drawing your particular line in the sand.

Re:free speech?

[Raenex]

So is your contention that religions should be required to adopt any legislatively-mandated social convention so long as it is not targeted at a religious organization in particular then?

Yes. That said, I believe such laws should be at a minimum, given the basic principles of freedom and allowing individuals their own pursuit of happiness.

I am still not sure where you are actually drawing your particular line in the sand.

Let's take some obvious examples. Let's say the government decided to outlaw the display of the cross. It's obviously targeted at Christians to prevent their free exercise of religion. Let's say for some absurd reason the government disallowed the display of jewelry. As ridiculous as I think this law would be, I don't think you should be allowed to wear a gold cross as a necklace.

Re:free speech?

[Fjandr]

Alright, then my original impression appears to have been fairly close to the mark. We'll simply have to agree to disagree. It would be trivial to formulate laws which would be both reasonable and destructive, and one need only again look at the Amish to see the truth in that statement. Were your standard used judicially the Amish would no longer exist as a religious group, at least not in anything resembling the same form they exist today. The advent of laws which are, in general, pragmatic to modern society would have, as an unintended side effect, destroyed their way of life despite it being simple, non-aggressive, and eminently honorable and admirable. I would consider their extinction as a mere side effect of zealous enforcement of the law to be one of the greatest crimes against the right of conscience to have ever occurred.

When laws conflict with conscience, I fully support those who choose to act based on their conscience. I would be interested to see what primary sources you'd rely on to argue there was even sizable minority, let alone widespread, support amongst the founders of the Republic for the opposite belief. Both Federalist and Anti-Federalist authors wrote about the expansiveness of rights retained by the people. Their difference of opinion on the topic of individual rights lay almost exclusively in which path they believed less likely to be perverted and/or co-opted by a corrupted national government.

Re:free speech?

[Raenex]

It would be trivial to formulate laws which would be both reasonable and destructive, and one need only again look at the Amish to see the truth in that statement. Were your standard used judicially the Amish would no longer exist as a religious group, at least not in anything resembling the same form they exist today.

I'd say that's highly debatable. For example, in the case of education that you cited, nothing prevented the Amish from further education at home, and they were even putting their kids in public schools up to and including 8th grade. But regardless, cultures and religions change over time, and there can be no guarantees that people won't be forced to change.

When laws conflict with conscience, I fully support those who choose to act based on their conscience.

Conscience being entirely separable from religion, yet we as a society will inevitably have laws that some people will find unconscionable in which they don't get a religious exemption from. There are several laws in existence that impact me in such ways, but as an atheist I would never (nor could I) claim to be exempt from them.

I would be interested to see what primary sources you'd rely on to argue there was even sizable minority, let alone widespread, support amongst the founders of the Republic for the opposite belief.

Which, again, argues that such freedom-impacting laws should be minimal for all people, regardless of religion.

I think I found video footage of the protest.

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt9IdPttScQ

the story here

[girlintraining]

I think the real story here is that the federal government has become so corrupt and has debased our rights under the US Constitution that we're now having to use state constitutions to defend our freedoms. Many convictions have been upheld by the US Supreme Court for expressing discontent with the US government. It appears the last bastion of hope now lies with the states. I wonder how long before the first state withdraws from the Union, and a new civil war begins.

Re:the story here

[einstein4pres]

Welcome to Cascadia!

Re:the story here

[Anonymous Coward]

Many convictions have been upheld by the US Supreme Court for expressing discontent with the US government

Sources please?

Re:the story here

[FitForTheSun]

Seriously! Tim McVeigh was just "expressing discontent with the US government", and yet the courts "upheld his conviction"! THAT IS RIDICULOUS! Any time we express discontent, that is protected! Right on, brother.

Only states can protect us now. They have such a stellar track record of protecting their citizens, so that makes perfect sense. Remember back when the federal government was trying to force blacks to go to separate schools, but the states put their foot down and insisted on integration? That was a shining moment for the states. And these days, the federal government is trying to force people to follow one specific religion, but once again the states are saying NO, we won't have any of these establishment violations, we insist on protecting the rights of people to choose their own religion!

Re:the story here

[masternerdguy]

I really hope that was sarcasm.

Re:the story here

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the story here isn't about the state constitution. It's protected speech under the US Constitution too, but he was in a state court charged with violation of a state law.

Re:the story here

[Gary Perkins]

Wouldn't surprise me at all if it begins here in Texas. I can't speak for all of Texas, of course -- it's a rather big state -- but, there are plenty of parts around here where we have a deep love of our freedoms. Many are grumbling about the slow erosion of personal freedom, and I'm waiting for the federal government to pass the wrong law or implement the wrong policy. It's bound to happen with the direction things are going.

Re:the story here

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? Yeah, right. IANAL, but I think girlintraining needs a primer in Constitutional Law. You can't just appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court any time you're charged with a violation of state law, and want to fight the charge using a Free Speech defense (or, for that matter, anything in the Bill of Rights). First, you have to defend yourself in state courts, and if there's something in the state constitution that gets you off the charge, then YOU WIN. There's no Federal Question and therefore nothing ever happens in the Federal Courts. Get it? So it's not that the federal government has become so corrupt blah blah blah, it's that no Federal Question was involved, and therefore neither was the U.S. Constitution.

Seriously, some folks jump at any opportunity to take cheap shots at the federal government, even when it makes absolutely no sense...

Re:the story here

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I think the real story here is that the federal government has become so corrupt and has debased our rights under the US Constitution that we're now having to use state constitutions to defend our freedoms.

(a) It is not the defendent's decision to be charged with a federal or state crime.
(b) A not guilty verdict on a state charge doesn't in any way protect one from a subsequent guilty verdict on a federal charge.

So, in summary (a) there is no turning to state courts and (b) even if there was, it wouldn't protect against a federal court ruling.

Re:the story here

[KhabaLox]

I have my Free Cascadia bumper sticker and my Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs t-shirt.

Re:the story here

[shutdown -p now]

I think the real story here is that the federal government has become so corrupt and has debased our rights under the US Constitution that we're now having to use state constitutions to defend our freedoms.

Historically, the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments at all (that's why they all have constitutions, and why those constitutions have articles protecting freedom of speech etc). Incorporation of the Bill of Rights only began with the 14th, and even then it was only interpreted to mean that 30 years after it came in force.

Re:the story here

[shutdown -p now]

Just be careful that it doesn't end up a Northwest American Republic, or somesuch.

Re:the story here

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hope that was.

I think this made the irony more obvious then Jonathan Swift's famous work, although that's preciesely why Swift's work is so much better.

Re:the story here

[HermMunster]

He didn't express discontent. He committed mass murder.

Re:the story here

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't speak for all of Texas, of course -- it's a rather big state -- but, there are plenty of parts around here where we have a deep love of our freedoms.

Texas still executes retards, tries to pass off funneling tax dollars to churches as social spending, and is trying its hardest to turn the nation's science textbooks into bibles. While the average Texan may love their freedom, they don't seem to give a damn for the freedom of others.

I hope you guys secede tomorrow.

Re:the story here

[tomhath]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights never gave you free reign to do whatever you want. You still (generally) have to obey the law. In this case the judge agreed that his right to express his views overrode the public decency law. It's always a trade-off. But if your actions take away other peoples' rights (by trespassing, blocking streets, etc.) your rights will probably come in second place to those of the people you have wronged. Don't hold your breath expecting a secession.

Re:the story here

[arkane1234]

by the same nature, I could put a shell in your head then say I was expressing discontent with the Californian legislature.

Re:the story here

[vux984]

Just be careful that it doesn't end up a Northwest American Republic, or somesuch.

1 in 4 British Columbians are "non-white", and the minorities aren't all illegal migrant farm workers or impoverished either. They're fairly well integrated into society, represented in government, etc. I don't know about the rest of "Cascadia" but racial supremacy isn't likely to get a strong foothold there.

Re:the story here

[shutdown -p now]

If you read that website, they actually do have some hand waving around this. They don't really consider BC, and as far as American Northwest goes, they claim that most "aliens" reside in relatively compact urban conglomerations along the I-5 corridor, while east of Cascades is an all-whitey land. It's primarily the latter that they target initially, which is why their "migration guide" speaks of moving preferentially to Eastern Washington and Oregon.

Re:the story here

[pclminion]

Removing ones clothing, and detonating a massive bomb in front of a building full of people, are equivalent acts in your mind?

Re:the story here

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wonder how long before the first state withdraws from the Union, and a new civil war begins."

I think this is just what the US needs.

Re:the story here

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously! Tim McVeigh was just "expressing discontent with the US government", and yet the courts "upheld his conviction"! THAT IS RIDICULOUS!

There are people that are fighting for freedoms. There are people that are a little crazy. There are some that are quite a bit nuts, but generally well meaning.

Then, there is you. All by yourself in the retarded corner. And I'm assuming you are simply failing to be sarcastic or something.

Re:the story here

[Fjandr]

If anyone thinks Eastern Cascadia is "all-whitey" land, they've never been here or they lump Hispanics in as "all-white." Maybe Hispanics are now "white enough" for the race-baiters.

Unfortunately, there is still a small Aryan contingent alive and well in North Idaho, so perhaps they are under the mistaken impression they can grow that into what it once was. That site sounds like an attempt to make their movement more palatable to people who would otherwise, at best, ignore them.

As for me, I'd love to see the Northwest break off into its own country.

Re:the story here

[R3d M3rcury]

He didn't express discontent. He committed mass murder.

True. But how about the children who were forced to view this man? They're scarred for life!

We have to nip this in the bud or we'll have perverts at the airport exposing themselves and claiming "free speech."

Re:the story here

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

That's the way it was supposed to work to begin with. The Federalist Papers assured people afraid of Federal tyranny that the states would protect their citizens.

Then the South went and ruined it for everyone, probably forever.

Re:the story here

[Anonymous Coward]

and then Sanctions Iran style or American sponsored terrorism Syrian style.

Re:the story here

[CanHasDIY]

Not to mention, don't the vast majority of Texans live within the Constitution Free Zone? For claiming to have a "deep love of freedom," they sure do have funny ways of showing it...

Re:the story here

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, since this happened in Oregon, it would be difficult to find him in violation of the public decency law as it only applies to sexual/erotic displays in that state.

Re:the story here

[Anonymous Coward]

Hispanic is a cultural designation, not a racial one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic

Re:the story here

[Fjandr]

Apologies. For the pedant, "Hispanic" is an ethnonym denoting a certain group comprising a shared heritage, culture, and language.

In this case, the racial component is not entirely universal, but is large enough for most practical purposes.

Movement

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe more people should do this? You know... for free speech reasons.

The oregon constitution protects talking penises?

[kotku]

Yay! Well slam that in your car door and collect the change Mr Law Man!

Similar rights in WA state

[WillAffleckUW]

Live Free and Fly!

Seriously, though, it would be a good idea to walk thru one of the backscatter x-ray machines with lead foil that spelled out "Fvck The TSA!" ... under your shirt.

Re:Similar rights in WA state

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/

Re:Similar rights in WA state

[ozduo]

Live Free and Fly!

Seriously, though, it would be a good idea to walk thru one of the backscatter x-ray machines with lead foil that spelled out "Fvck The TSA!" ... under your shirt.

Wow so next time I go to Bali I'll see foil T shirts everywhere. What a cool idea!

Re:Similar rights in WA state

[v1]

I doubt that would have any effect. They are just the wheels in the machine. It's the system that's broken, and they can't really change anything even if they were motivated to try and do so.

And in most cases they're just loosely following the rules, or in a few cases, strictly enforcing them. Think carefully about which way you'd prefer them to work on the average. (hint: the latter are the cases that tend to make the headlines)

Re:Similar rights in WA state

[sixtyeight]

...Or, you could sue the bejeezus out of the TSA and the other organizations involved and shut them down.

You know. Not to sound weird or anything.

Re:Similar rights in WA state

[WillAffleckUW]

It also has a bonus effect. The lead foil in the shirt shields the UV rays, so you'll end up with a lighter skin area that has the words, and you can wear a mesh t-shirt on the return trip from Bali and the same message will be visible to all.

Re:Similar rights in WA state

[Anonymous Coward]

reminds me of a story a guy was had to fly to a meeting somewhere for work his colleagues wanted to mess with him so they cut the silhouette of a handgun and put it in between a stack of papers in his briefcase, his missed his flight ...

was many many years ago, to day he would probably have his life ruined ...

Re:Similar rights in WA state

[fahrbot-bot]

Live Free and Fly!

My (limited) experience with the TSA has me believing: Live Free or Fly!

Re:Similar rights in WA state

[WillAffleckUW]

Live Free and Fly!

My (limited) experience with the TSA has me believing: Live Free or Fly!

That's what the Matrix wants you to believe.

Re:Similar rights in WA state

[CanHasDIY]

Live Free and Fly!

Seriously, though, it would be a good idea to walk thru one of the backscatter x-ray machines with lead foil that spelled out "Fvck The TSA!" ... under your shirt.

Prior Art, Enjoy!

No Fly List

[Art Challenor]

Well, we can be sure he'll either be on the "no fly list" or will never have a problem getting through security again. Sadly, I'd guess the former.

Try that in Texas

[ronmon]

I think we would see an entirely different outcome. Pick any other Bible Belt state if you like.

Ok, so...

[roc97007]

...we all know what to do, right? If we can't get them to stop with the security theater, at least we can make it as unpleasant for them as possible.

Re:Ok, so...

[sixtyeight]

Big "if", though. Huge.

Use the courts.

Re:Ok, so...

[pipedwho]

Use the courts.

That's a bit like telling a homeless guy to move in to a New York City penthouse, since you'd heard the owners were having trouble finding a tenant.

Re:Ok, so...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely they'll adjust by saying "Thank you" and sending you on your way. Naked.

Re:Ok, so...

[roc97007]

Wouldn't bother me overmuch, but might bother the people who had to look at me.

Re:Ok, so...

[sixtyeight]

Right, I keep forgetting not everyone is current on the same things I am. There's a growing trend for Americans to take a more active role in upholding the law, and working with LEO's and even the FBI to make citizens' arrests. Thousands of them are learning the laws of their own country again, and what to do when public officials (including judges) aren't upholding their oaths. It's only been the lack of law knowledge of most of the citizenry, and the lack of inclination to uphold our founding principles, that has enabled courts to become so very slipshod in their decisions of late. And that trend is on its way out, it's just not being reported by the mainstream news yet.

So what I'd meant was, using the courts is going to become a viable strategy again because the People are starting to once again use them collectively. Class actions against those who've enacted un-Constitutional legislation, not to mention the bottom-rung lackey manning the backscatter scanner, are going to be quite feasible and effective.

Re:Ok, so...

[pipedwho]

It's a breath of fresh air to hear that.

Re:Ok, so...

[sixtyeight]

If you'd like to hear more, or encourage participation yourself, here is a source with about five thousand people getting started on it.

Re:Ok, so...

[roc97007]

A good day-to-day place to start is to get the officer's guide to law in your state and READ it. It's generally not long, and will give you an idea of what constitutes "legal" in your daily affairs. In many places it's available electronically if you have a smartphone. My copy has already prevented me from being arrested once.

Probably not any time soon...

[CaptnCrud]

Hyperbol much? You want to see real curruption in governments that debases rights of the populace constantly (of those with no say of course, the poor mostly)? Move to central america sometime... ...and when you pull up to a check point, I would dearly like to see the fear smattered look on your face as they haul off the driver and family in front you with zero due process, then again...due process is overrated when you have an M4A1 riffle pointed at your back and pointed at your kids. But your right, these x-ray machines and the off hand chance someone may get their jollies from your nakedness is far worse...

Now for the Federal Charges

[theshowmecanuck]

I just finished listening to an interview with this guy on "As It Happens" (Thursday, July 19, 2012 Episode, which today... Thursday... will still be at the top). You can look for a podcast of it on CBC Radio or I believe on PRI or NPR (but they may just point to CBC). Or listen online.

The fellow said that he was cleared of the indecency charge in Oregon since that charge was under their jurisdiction. However he still has to go through some Federal tribunal or legal process to address his disruption to the TSA people. And if he decides to dispute this, it goes to a secret tribunal and neither he nor his lawyer will be allowed to discuss the matter. So it's not all over for him.

Re:Now for the Federal Charges

[Nerdfest]

So it's not all over for him.

The TSA and secret tribunals ... you're far more optimistic than I.

Re:Now for the Federal Charges

[Anonymous Coward]

to address his disruption to the TSA people

Clearly he was trying to be helpful, so the case should be a naked slam dunk.

Re:Now for the Federal Charges

[Anonymous Coward]

The TSA agents did not apply the law correctly and that misapplication of the law created the disruption. Why is it legal to hold the defendent legally responsible for the agents' ignorance of the law? If that's allowed then simply being conspicuous or simply being arrested can be abused as a justification to imprison and/or silence the critics of any law enforcement organization.

Re:Now for the Federal Charges

[Anonymous Coward]

Secret tribunals, yep, USA land of the free alright. Good thing they'v fought so much and those dam commies, now we can finally have a melting pot of 21st century fascism dating corporatism in an orgy of supposedly free markets when its convenient.

Re:Now for the Federal Charges

[AbrasiveCat]

From what I have heard http://www.kgw.com/news/Naked-fliers-attorneys-ask-for-acquittal-162908166.html, Mr Brennan maybe fined up to $11,000 and be put on the no-fly list for interfered with the screening process. I don't know if this is a legal issue for the courts or if he can just be administratively found guilty, but I hope TSA knows when to walk away. It seems to me that he was helping the screening process by ensuring no contraband was on his person. I suspect that if I were on a jury I would find him innocent.

Re:Now for the Federal Charges

[dsmurf]

Which is why there are secret tribunals.

Re:Ever hear of the Sedition Act of 1918 which

[Anonymous Coward]

SCOTUS upheld exactly one conviction (not "many") for that - in 1919. Subsequent rulings have established precedent that would make it nearly impossible for such a conviction to survive in the present legal environment.

Try again. And this time start by learning the difference between a source and a casual reference.

This big!

[smileytshirt]

For those who haven't RTFA, here is my favourite photo: http://photos.oregonlive.com/oregonian/2012/07/pdx_stripper_is_acquitted_1.html

Re:This big!

[jazzboat]

Classic!

TSA was asking for it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at how they were dressed.

Question ...

[WankersRevenge]

Does Canada have anything remotely similar to the TSA? I live somewhat near the border and the thought of watching a high school dropout paw my four year old makes me somewhat livid. And the idea of self-imposed radiation treatment is also quite unpalatable. I think I'd rather drive eight hours to Canadian airport than use the one the down the street. Is this doable?

Re:Question ...

[chrismcb]

Why? You still have to go through security. The US doesn't have a monopoly on idiocy at the security theatre.

ridiculous

[slashmydots]

So anyone with a point can strip naked as long as it's related? Anti-sheep wool use as clothing? Nude time! Completely ridiculous.

Re:ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

So anyone with a point can strip naked as long as it's related? Anti-sheep wool use as clothing? Nude time! Completely ridiculous.

No, but if your mother forcibly dresses you in wool, strip naked in protest.

Re:ridiculous

[chrismcb]

So anyone with a point can strip naked as long as it's related? Anti-sheep wool use as clothing? Nude time! Completely ridiculous.

Why do you consider it ridiculous? It is a form of protest, and has been used through out time, remember Lady Godiva? PETA does this from time to time. Free Speech means more than just spoken or written words.
Not to mention the fact, it is NOT illegal to be naked in public in Oregon (or many states for that matter)

Nothing to see here...

[Anonymous Coward]

move along...

TSA is Rent-A-Nazi Bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

'Nough said Dan-O.

LoL

Trading freedom for security

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

There is no tradeoff.

Give up all freedom, and you have a police state. Those are horribly dangerous to live in. They don't eliminate non-state terrorism, either.

What does "security" mean, anyway? What are we trying to protect? Guess what, our freedom.

Re:Trading freedom for security

[Paradise Pete]

Well, he didn't get the quote right. It's trading essential liberty for temporary safety.

I'm affraid that's just not true

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the definition in Merriam-Webster, or Dictionary.com or simply googling "define:speech"... the definitions aren't nearly that wide. Most specifically mention that you need to utter/articulate/whatever by vocal means and the example phrases in both my links directly contrast speech and written form. This is supported by the fact that constitution had to specifically mention freedom of printed press and it wasn't simply thought "Well, the speech already covers that". I also would argue that speech in common language isn't that wide but that could be a matter of opinion so I won't go there.

I do agree that political messages through paintings, music or even stripping yourself naked to protest demeaning searches should be protected under constitution of the US but I'm not that sure that they are. In general, the whole "speech" word is highly problematic and there should be an errata. For example, where I live (more recent nation than the US), the constitution doesn't mention "Free speech" but it does mention Freedom of religion and conscience, Freedom of expression and right of access to information, Freedom of assembly and freedom of association, each of which is further defined by its own paragraph. For example, description of freedom of information is:

Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone. More detailed provisions on the exercise of the freedom of expression are laid down by an Act. Provisions on restrictions relating to pictorial programmes that are necessary for the protection of children may be laid down by an Act.

Which makes it very clear that if it's information or expression, it is protected. Exceptions are the one directly mentioned and where it breaks other peoples' constitutional rights for reasons other than being expression (for example, constitution also protects the right to property, so I can't break your stuff and say "It's just my artistic expression").

However, I doubt that we are going to see any clarifications to the constitution of the US anytime soon. It is treated like a religious document: Instead of people debating what it should say and should it be modified to say that, people debate how it could be interpreted to support the views they already have.

Re:I'm affraid that's just not true

[sjames]

The legal definition of a word may differ considerably from the dictionary definition. The word "speech" is an example of that. The dictionary attempts to capture the common intended meaning when someone says the word, while the legal definition begins there (more specifically, with the dictionary definition at the time the law was written) and adds to it years of judicial presidents.

In law, speech is any sort of communication. The term isn't actually legally ambiguous at all. That's why the judge was able to determine that stripping was speech in this context.

The 1st Amendment explicitly naming religion speech, press, assembly and petition was meant to communicate that the broadest interpretation is the intended one.

One reason an update is not desired is the fear that hidden agendas and ulterior motives would dominate when the new wording is chosen.

"If we had some eggs, we could make ham and eggs

[Anonymous Coward]

...if we had any ham."

Parent had it right. You don't get a jury trial just so that they can have a chance to tell the court they're going to decide to ignore the law. You get a jury when there are questions of fact to be tried. No questions of fact, no jury. If you want a jury trial, you have to leave facts with legal implications in dispute.

As for juries "pass(ing) whatever sentence they wish"... No. Juries don't pass sentence. That's the court's job. You may be thinking of the role that juries are sometimes given in assessing civil damages.

So is he free to travel ...

[dbIII]

So is he free to travel or was he blackballed by the TSA?

And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The 200 people all around him "viewing" his protest will all now win their civil cases against him for mental anguish, and he'll be broke forever more.

How many ... do you know ... died from Terrorists?

[dakra137]

Three: Two young adults who grew up in my community as classmates. The first in a bus bombing in Gaza, the second in the WTC on 9/11. The third was a physician who treated my wife, was the medical practice partner of a very close friend, and head of the ER at a hospital that Arabs in and around Jerusalem prefer. One challenge in all countries with significant citizens' (and in some cases non-citizens) rights, is determining how much they apply to those who deny those rights to others. Few people, for example, think that intercepted terrorist bombs should be detonated without first being separated from their bearers.