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.
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! --
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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).
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.
So is he free to travel or was he blackballed by the TSA?