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."
not going to touch that
This news makes me happy to live in Oregon!
And kudos to the judge for being sensible.
53A11BA115
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
Guess that's better than temporary insanity...
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.
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.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
I think we would see an entirely different outcome. Pick any other Bible Belt state if you like.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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 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.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
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.
For those who haven't RTFA, here is my favourite photo: http://photos.oregonlive.com/oregonian/2012/07/pdx_stripper_is_acquitted_1.html
www.shortman.com.au - top shorted stocks on the ASX
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.
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.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
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?
ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
Thanks for the correction.
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?
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'.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
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.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
So anyone with a point can strip naked as long as it's related? Anti-sheep wool use as clothing? Nude time! Completely ridiculous.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 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 or was he blackballed by the TSA?
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.