Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Who Protested TSA By Stripping Is Acquitted By Judge

Posted by samzenpus on from the pants-are-optional dept.

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."

36 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. not going to touch that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    not going to touch that

    1. Re:not going to touch that by kubernet3s · · Score: 4, Funny

      that's what they said

    2. Re:not going to touch that by HermMunster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    3. Re:not going to touch that by Immerman · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:not going to touch that by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:not going to touch that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not if they're never seated.

    6. Re:not going to touch that by Fjandr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:not going to touch that by Holi · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    8. Re:not going to touch that by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    9. Re:not going to touch that by brentrad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

    10. Re:not going to touch that by brentrad · · Score: 5, Informative

      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]

  2. Awesome! by DarthBling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This news makes me happy to live in Oregon!

    And kudos to the judge for being sensible.

    1. Re:Awesome! by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Awesome! by sarysa · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'll bring the cool hwip.

      FTFY

      --
      Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
    3. Re:Awesome! by sconeu · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thank you, Stewie.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:Awesome! by slacka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

    5. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

    6. Re:Awesome! by oakgrove · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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!

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    7. Re:Awesome! by jyx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  3. Irony by sixtyeight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Irony by Githaron · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Irony by makisupa · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      "A matter of internal security, the age old cry of the oppressor" - Jean Luc Picard
    3. Re:Irony by DarthBling · · Score: 5, Informative

      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".

    4. Re:Irony by pclminion · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Irony by LurkerXXX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Portland has an annual Naked Bike Ride event

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

    7. Re:Irony by brentrad · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. Re:free speech? by sarysa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. the story here by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  6. Re:free speech? by zwede · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not half as indecent as what the TSA does.

  7. Re:free speech? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Now for the Federal Charges by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Now for the Federal Charges by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

  9. Re:free speech? by BeanThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:ridiculous by chrismcb · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)

  11. Re:free speech? by Raenex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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).