SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In 2012 John Brennan protested the TSA by stripping nude in an Oregon airport, his actions were ruled a fully legal protest under Oregon law. Despite that ruling, the TSA insists on fining him $500.
Brennan is appealing the fine to the 9th circuit court with the intent of putting the TSA's often extra-legal administrative decisions under constitutional scrutiny. It's going to cost him $15,000. So far he's raised $9,000 with 3 more days to go.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Jiro on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:25PM
This is disingenuous. It's not a "fully legal protest". Rather, it's a protest that's not illegal *based on the nudity being indecent exposure* and *based on criminal law* (not all law is criminal law). It may still be illegal for other reasons, and they still can fine him.
Imagine that instead of prancing around in the nude, the guy threw a paint bomb at the TSA agent. He was then put on trial for using a deadly weapon. The judge rules that a paint bomb isn't a deadly weapon, so he's innocent. Does that mean that they can't fine him? Of course they can fine him. He still caused a disruption. The ruling of innocence just means that he's innocent of violating the specific law they tried to use against him in the trial.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:56PM
So you can type even with that cock in you mouth.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:00PM
> The judge rules that a paint bomb isn't a deadly weapon, so he's innocent.
Except he would be guilty of assault.
When your analogy is so contorted that you have to deny the obvious, that ought to be a hint that you are denying the obvious.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:43PM
Before 2005, I had no porn on my computers.
Now, without even really looking that hard to download it, I have roughly 50 gig of porn. Enough hard cocks and full nudity, to last a lifetime. Or at least a week.
Whenever anyone says that they're offended by nudity, I have to wonder; just how little time have they spent online ? Just how little porn have they watched ? Just how absurdly insulated have their lives been ?
In my case, the weak link that opened my eyes to porn, was the longest list of the longest stuff at the longest domain at long last dot com. A pretty tame site with lotsa trivia, sorta like guinness world records, but less official.
Tried search golfing to find a shorter query to find that site; and the first result was a different, parallel site that claimed to have the longest list of porn. Even if most of the thumbnails were either dead links or links to paywalled porn, there was still quite a bit available.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:11PM
Which ruling are you citing to justify your subject-line that "TSA is in the right"?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2, Funny) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:13PM
I stand by your proud stance my authoritarian brother. It is clear to me how much of a mighty crusader for what is right you are.
For too long people have made gestures of defiance of the law and they must be held to account! Should we let such criminals get away with breaking our most sacred and just laws then chaos can only ensue.
I stand in awe of you.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday November 20 2015, @01:19AM
You'd better stand still, because we have retroactively caught all people breaking the law in protest, therefore you may either make your negro sing God Save The Queen or head for the gallows.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @05:11PM
The TSA is never in the right, because it's an unconstitutional organization whose job it is to violate countless people's fundamental liberties each and every day. People who work for the TSA are traitors.
The concept of "indecent exposure" is illegitimate in the first place, because what is "indecent" is subjective, and if someone is offended by nudity, that is their own problem. You can't cause actual harm to someone else merely by being nude.
Imagine that instead of prancing around in the nude, the guy threw a paint bomb at the TSA agent.
A paint bomb has physical effects on others. Not applicable.
He still caused a disruption.
The TSA causes disruptions by violating people's constitutional rights. Maybe protesting this inconveniences some people in the line, but suck it up. It's thanks to people who are willing to protest oppression that the petty, ignorant majority has any rights at all.
The ruling of innocence just means that he's innocent of violating the specific law they tried to use against him in the trial.
It doesn't seem like they have any cause to fine him, then.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jiro on Thursday November 19 2015, @08:14PM
The point of the analogy is that just because something is not illegal for reason X doesn't mean it can't still be illegal for reason Y. It's not indecent exposure, but that doesn't mean it can't violate other laws and therefore the TSA can still fine him. The post tries to imply that since the protest was "fully legal", the TSA is contradicting the courts by acting as though it's illegal anyway. This isn't true.
The post tries to imply that the TSA is in the wrong specifically because it disregarded the court ruling. It did not, in fact, disregard the court ruling; it's innocent of the specific accusation the post tried to make. Just because the TSA is a bad idea overall doesn't mean it's guilty of every single thing people accuse it of.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @09:51PM
It's not indecent exposure, but that doesn't mean it can't violate other laws and therefore the TSA can still fine him.
What laws did he break, specifically? Even if he *did* break some law, getting naked should not be against the law. Neither should causing a "disruption" at an airport while protesting government thugs violating your constitutional rights.
The TSA has no grounds to fine anyone; it doesn't have any legitimate authority whatsoever. It sounds like this treacherous organization is trying to fine someone without due process to me.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday November 19 2015, @08:40PM
I'm on the fence between you two, only because the guy did get literally naked. Protesting is great and all, but I hardly think Dr. King would be amending his speech to include "dreams of a sea of naked people". I'm not a prude or anything, but I do think there are limits to what we can do while protesting. Getting naked is rather extreme, and it wasn't at the courthouse steps. The TSA *still* does have a job to do, even if we don't appreciate it. Fining him for the disruption based on him getting naked seems somewhat reasonable.
It's enough for me to yell "male optout!" and make the TSA agent lift my balls up from side to side. Neither of us are happy, and I'm pretty sure that TSA agents lifting millions of testicles each day would be more effective than one dude screaming crazy naked. Not to mention female optout is bullshit. Those scanners can't detect what is in their vaginas, blah blah blah *security theater* indeed. They think it was a soda can bomb that took out that Russian plane over Egypt. I have the Internet, and in my research, I've concluded there are many women that can creatively hide an entire soda can. Even an Arizona Iced Tea can...
There may be something that you're not considering though, and changes the context quite a bit. At some point during the TSA encounter, you are held against your will, cannot leave the area, and can only comply with TSA instructions or be handed into police custody . At least for TSA that is "federal". There are some airports with privatized ones that are different (according to a TSA friend of mine). Those invasive cavity searches are not conducted by the TSA either, but by "Metro". I don't believe it is widely known enough, and that many people are faced with walking into that "zone" blindly.
I'm certain we both agree he had the basis to protest, but I think you're forgetting that he was practically held captive and forcefully given orders by fellow citizens well outside of due process (You think it's unconstitutional). In that situation, even I would get naked and hope I don't get thrown out back to sea. Not even in court do you experience anything like that. You need to be arrested and go through booking to be treated so invasively without regards to your privacy.
That's how he needs to fight the ticket. The disruption of his civil rights by dubiously qualified and empowered citizens and subsequent kidnapping (there are different legal levels for it) created the situation of extreme duress.
Personally, I think the TSA creates millions of civil rights victims every day. They just don't care enough to complain too loudly.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @09:46PM
I'm on the fence between you two, only because the guy did get literally naked.
There is no right to not be offended. If you're offended by nudity, that's your problem. How does someone being nude harm you in any tangible way? If it doesn't harm you, then what grounds do you have to decide that they can't get naked?
I'm not a prude or anything
That appears to be false.
but I do think there are limits to what we can do while protesting.
As do I. Here's where my line is: You shouldn't inflict tangible harm upon other people, their property, or take away their freedoms. Other than that, you have no grounds to have government thugs stop them from protesting.
The TSA *still* does have a job to do, even if we don't appreciate it.
It's not just that I don't appreciate it, it's that their job necessarily involves violating the highest law of the land. They have no excuses; every person working for the TSA is a traitor. I take the position that they should not and must not do their jobs.
Fining him for the disruption based on him getting naked seems somewhat reasonable.
No. The only ones who cause disruptions here are the government thugs who force you to endure the violation of your constitutional rights if you want to get on a plane.
The TSA also has no grounds to fine anyone. The organization is not legitimate.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday November 20 2015, @04:59PM
Hear hear.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday November 20 2015, @08:02AM
Standard practice for the Doukhobors. Drop trow, make a point.
I'm not a prude or anything, but I do think there are limits to what we can do while protesting. Getting naked is rather extreme,
What are you, some kind of prude? Are you willing to relinquish fundamental human rights just so you do not have to see flabby, ill-shaped, middle aged men with no fabric covering their pulcritudinous incarnate virulity? What are you, gay? I don't buy any of what you have said, and I am starting to think that you are a closeted American scared shitless by the attacks in Paris, and now you are taking it out on naked white guys, when they did not even drop the soap in the first place. Shame on you, edill, shame on you.
(Score: 1) by AlphaSnail on Friday November 20 2015, @09:42PM
Being forced to have your balls groped by someone who dam well knows your not "the guy" he's really looking for is disruptive too. But hey I guess it's all about safety (theatre).