Slashdot Mirror
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."
This news makes me happy to live in Oregon!
And kudos to the judge for being sensible.
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.
The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
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.
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Not half as indecent as what the TSA does.
No, it makes perfect sense as a political statement about an agency that wants to grope you or see your naked profile
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Not if they're never seated.
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.
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
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.