Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   50-year-old website manager, nicknamed "Sir Godiva," who stripped naked for the TSA says liberty has trumped modesty in his court appearance   (latimes.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, TSA, Multnomah County, Oklahoma City Bombing, direct response, World Naked Bike Ride, the liberal state  
•       •       •

7524 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jul 2012 at 10:47 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-21 05:28:53 AM  
This cracks me up.
 
2012-07-21 10:15:50 AM  
Dude seems to be #winning
 
2012-07-21 10:49:37 AM  
FTFA: 50-year-old website manager

Man, that's an old website.
 
2012-07-21 10:49:39 AM  
Why is it always the ugly ones?
 
2012-07-21 10:52:30 AM  
i283.photobucket.com

While I agree in principle ....
 
2012-07-21 10:53:44 AM  
If he's acquitted on indecent exposure charges, then what exactly is indecent exposure?
 
2012-07-21 10:54:50 AM  

chaddsfarkprefect: If he's acquitted on indecent exposure charges, then what exactly is indecent exposure?


Opposite of decent exposure; duh.
 
2012-07-21 10:57:06 AM  

One Bad Apple: [i283.photobucket.com image 596x413]

While I agree in principle ....


BAAAAAALD!!!
 
2012-07-21 10:57:44 AM  

chaddsfarkprefect: If he's acquitted on indecent exposure charges, then what exactly is indecent exposure?


Rosanne Barr doing nude jumping-jacks on a glass ceiling above a mirror factory's display showroom.
 
2012-07-21 10:57:49 AM  

Evil Mackerel: Why is it always the ugly ones?


It's one of the rules of life: the only people who you'll ever see naked in public are the people you don't want to see naked in public. Nudist beaches are the most obvious example; another is the fact that women can legally go topless on the New York City Subway (indeed, it's legal for any person to ride the train with naught but a loin cloth and flip-flops) but you'll never see Mila Kunis or Jessica Alba exercising this right, it's always women who could pass as body doubles for Mick Foley.

/likewise, if you see a man on a beach wearing a Speedo, chances are he looks more like Foley than like Michael Phelps
 
2012-07-21 10:58:15 AM  

Chariset: chaddsfarkprefect: If he's acquitted on indecent exposure charges, then what exactly is indecent exposure?

Opposite of decent exposure; duh.



Ok, sorta like flammable and inflammable?
 
2012-07-21 10:58:18 AM  
This is why we can't have needles in our sammiches...
 
2012-07-21 11:00:11 AM  

King Something: Evil Mackerel: Why is it always the ugly ones?

It's one of the rules of life: the only people who you'll ever see naked in public are the people you don't want to see naked in public. Nudist beaches are the most obvious example; another is the fact that women can legally go topless on the New York City Subway (indeed, it's legal for any person to ride the train with naught but a loin cloth and flip-flops) but you'll never see Mila Kunis or Jessica Alba exercising this right, it's always women who could pass as body doubles for Mick Foley.

/likewise, if you see a man on a beach wearing a Speedo, chances are he looks more like Foley than like Michael Phelps


So the desire to be a nudist is directly connected to the gene expression pattern that makes you look like Mick Foley?

Good: I see a grant to study this comin' my way!!!

Bad: And a lot of naked Mick Foley.
 
2012-07-21 11:07:36 AM  
Yeah, I'm guessing that despite the acquittal he's not going to be pulling the same stunt again.
 
2012-07-21 11:07:58 AM  
Lady Godiva -> shouldn't that be Lord Godiva?
 
2012-07-21 11:08:49 AM  
I mean unless his wife married down.
 
2012-07-21 11:09:15 AM  

Fark Rye For Many Whores: Lady Godiva -> shouldn't that be Lord Godiva?


You know your wiener is small when everyone has seen you naked and still calls you "Lady".
 
2012-07-21 11:10:11 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-21 11:16:52 AM  

Evil Mackerel: Why is it always the ugly ones?


Show us your picture.
 
2012-07-21 11:17:27 AM  
I'm waiting for the Facebook page organizing a national nude protest of the TSA's egregious assault on our personal rights and liberty.

/and we need hot celebs to join up
 
2012-07-21 11:21:37 AM  
FTFA:

"We continue to focus our attention on TSA's primary mission of keeping our nation's transportation system safe from security threats."

Someone at the TSA owes me a new monitor.
 
2012-07-21 11:28:00 AM  
I think the TSA is a complete waste of time and money. I'd thrilled if they shut it down tomorrow.

Having said that - I don't see how this can be innocent. Right or wrong - we live in a society where we don't want our children staring at some 50 year old dude's junk when we go out in public. We have laws that help ensure we don't have to deal with that. This guy broke that law....to make a point. Good for him. Point made.

But he still broke a perfectly valid law.

Since I also dislike the TSA - can I walk around naked everywhere I go? Or only in airports? Seems a slippery slope.
 
2012-07-21 11:32:06 AM  
www.allstarxray.com

/hot like Mars
 
2012-07-21 11:33:04 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I think the TSA is a complete waste of time and money. I'd thrilled if they shut it down tomorrow.

Having said that - I don't see how this can be innocent. Right or wrong - we live in a society where we don't want our children staring at some 50 year old dude's junk when we go out in public. We have laws that help ensure we don't have to deal with that. This guy broke that law....to make a point. Good for him. Point made.

But he still broke a perfectly valid law.

Since I also dislike the TSA - can I walk around naked everywhere I go? Or only in airports? Seems a slippery slope.


There is no reason that nudity in a non-sexual context should be illegal. If a place of business wants to enforce a certain dress code, even if it's as basic as 'wear clothes' they should be allowed to, and be able to escort nude people from their premises, but they shouldn't be arrested or jailed just for being nude.

Seeing a naked person isn't going to harm a kid.
 
2012-07-21 11:34:01 AM  
Slipper Slope?

That's racist!
 
2012-07-21 11:38:39 AM  
Judge should have sentenced him to 3 months of P90X.
 
2012-07-21 11:42:24 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Having said that - I don't see how this can be innocent. Right or wrong - we live in a society where we don't want our children staring at some 50 year old dude's junk when we go out in public. We have laws that help ensure we don't have to deal with that. This guy broke that law....to make a point. Good for him. Point made.

But he still broke a perfectly valid law.


I refuse to believe that you mean this seriously.
 
2012-07-21 11:42:48 AM  

chaddsfarkprefect: If he's acquitted on indecent exposure charges, then what exactly is indecent exposure?


maybe 50 is where the peg is set
 
2012-07-21 11:46:56 AM  
I salute you, Good Sir.
 
2012-07-21 11:53:10 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Fark_Guy_Rob: I think the TSA is a complete waste of time and money. I'd thrilled if they shut it down tomorrow.

Having said that - I don't see how this can be innocent. Right or wrong - we live in a society where we don't want our children staring at some 50 year old dude's junk when we go out in public. We have laws that help ensure we don't have to deal with that. This guy broke that law....to make a point. Good for him. Point made.

But he still broke a perfectly valid law.

Since I also dislike the TSA - can I walk around naked everywhere I go? Or only in airports? Seems a slippery slope.

There is no reason that nudity in a non-sexual context should be illegal. If a place of business wants to enforce a certain dress code, even if it's as basic as 'wear clothes' they should be allowed to, and be able to escort nude people from their premises, but they shouldn't be arrested or jailed just for being nude.

Seeing a naked person isn't going to harm a kid.


I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you. You might have an excellent point and maybe the laws should be changed.

But until they are - we have laws against it. Society, as a whole, feels it's a crime. If your argument is 'everyone should be able to go around naked' that's a valid argument. But my problem is that we're giving this guy a free pass because he happened to get naked while dealing with the TSA. It seems like an awfully specific and silly exception to a law against nudity.

If the judge had said, 'Nudity is now okay!' I'd have no problem with it. But until that happens - I don't see why this guy should get a free pass.
 
2012-07-21 11:53:47 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: But he still broke a perfectly valid law.


It is your civic duty to deliberately break unjust laws (so long as you do not cause bodily harm or property damage to other people). It's the reason India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are no longer British colonies; the reason blacks are no longer forced to sit in the back of the bus, forced to drink from separate but equal water fountains or prohibited from marrying whites; and the reason that the massive wealth gap in this country (1% versus 99%), and the causes and effects of the same, are now part of the national discussion.

Farking civil disobedience, how does it work?
 
2012-07-21 11:56:51 AM  
fark the TSA.
 
2012-07-21 11:59:48 AM  

StoneColdAtheist: Fark_Guy_Rob: Having said that - I don't see how this can be innocent. Right or wrong - we live in a society where we don't want our children staring at some 50 year old dude's junk when we go out in public. We have laws that help ensure we don't have to deal with that. This guy broke that law....to make a point. Good for him. Point made.

But he still broke a perfectly valid law.

I refuse to believe that you mean this seriously.


I meant to say 'I don't see how this guy can be innocent' but I think the gist of my point was pretty clear. And yes, I'm 100% serious.

Laws against public nudity exist for a reason (whether or not it's a valid reason is another discussion). So long as they exist - they should be enforced.

This guy clearly broke those laws. I don't see any justification, in this case, for an exception to be made because he was at the airport or near the TSA or didn't like the TSA.

He wasn't in any direct or immediate danger. He took off his clothes to make a point. Can I smoke weed in the airport because I don't like TSA? Can I jerk off in the airport because I don't like TSA? Can I carry a gun in the airport because I don't like TSA?

What laws do we get to ignore because we don't like the TSA? Can I burn a TSA poster at the airport? Is that okay because I'm protesting?

It all just seems silly to me. No, I don't think the guy is a serious criminal. I'm not calling for jail time. I'm just saying, I don't see any reason for him to be exempt from the law. Obviously the judge disagrees me, and I'll admit, the judge is more qualified than I am - but I really just don't see any reason for his ruling. Running around naked is now a first amendment right? Seems like a giant stretch to me.
 
2012-07-21 12:03:15 PM  

King Something: Fark_Guy_Rob: But he still broke a perfectly valid law.

It is your civic duty to deliberately break unjust laws (so long as you do not cause bodily harm or property damage to other people). It's the reason India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are no longer British colonies; the reason blacks are no longer forced to sit in the back of the bus, forced to drink from separate but equal water fountains or prohibited from marrying whites; and the reason that the massive wealth gap in this country (1% versus 99%), and the causes and effects of the same, are now part of the national discussion.

Farking civil disobedience, how does it work?


Except he didn't break any of the laws he objected to. The law he broke was taking off his clothes. He's not protesting *that* law.

And, whatever our individual feels on public nudity may or may not be - the law exists for the protection of others who do not feel it appropriate for them/their family/children to see naked people in public. So, he very much did violate the rights of others who had nothing to do with the TSA's procedures.

If he wanted to protest the TSA by NOT submitting to their search - I'd fully support that as civil disobedience. But I see no connection between stripping in public and the need to express dislike of the TSA.
 
2012-07-21 12:04:45 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I think the TSA is a complete waste of time and money. I'd thrilled if they shut it down tomorrow.

Having said that - I don't see how this can be innocent. Right or wrong - we live in a society where we don't want our children staring at some 50 year old dude's junk when we go out in public. We have laws that help ensure we don't have to deal with that. This guy broke that law....to make a point. Good for him. Point made.

But he still broke a perfectly valid law.

Since I also dislike the TSA - can I walk around naked everywhere I go? Or only in airports? Seems a slippery slope.


A much more dangerous slippery slope is allowing a government agency to search us without probable cause. We are allowing them to break a perfectly valid law.
 
2012-07-21 12:06:04 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Running around naked is now a first amendment right? Seems like a giant stretch to me.


Running around naked isn't a right (well, apparently it is in Oregon outside of Portland), but free speech is.

The judge interpreted his nakedness as his means of protest, and thus it became protected 'speech'. Basically his actions were reductio ad absurdum to the TSA - "You want to invade my privacy? Here, invade ALL of my privacy!"
 
2012-07-21 12:10:40 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: King Something: Fark_Guy_Rob: But he still broke a perfectly valid law.

It is your civic duty to deliberately break unjust laws (so long as you do not cause bodily harm or property damage to other people). It's the reason India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are no longer British colonies; the reason blacks are no longer forced to sit in the back of the bus, forced to drink from separate but equal water fountains or prohibited from marrying whites; and the reason that the massive wealth gap in this country (1% versus 99%), and the causes and effects of the same, are now part of the national discussion.

Farking civil disobedience, how does it work?

Except he didn't break any of the laws he objected to. The law he broke was taking off his clothes. He's not protesting *that* law.

And, whatever our individual feels on public nudity may or may not be - the law exists for the protection of others who do not feel it appropriate for them/their family/children to see naked people in public. So, he very much did violate the rights of others who had nothing to do with the TSA's procedures.

If he wanted to protest the TSA by NOT submitting to their search - I'd fully support that as civil disobedience. But I see no connection between stripping in public and the need to express dislike of the TSA.


I get your point. He did break the law. The judge in this case did the same as a jury nullification. He was found not guilty even though he broke the law.
 
2012-07-21 12:11:02 PM  
Fark_Guy_Rob 2012-07-21 11:28:00 AM

I think the TSA is a complete waste of time and money. I'd thrilled if they shut it down tomorrow.

Having said that - I don't see how this can be innocent. Right or wrong - we live in a society where we don't want our children staring at some 50 year old dude's junk when we go out in public. We have laws that help ensure we don't have to deal with that. This guy broke that law....to make a point. Good for him. Point made.

But he still broke a perfectly valid law.

Since I also dislike the TSA - can I walk around naked everywhere I go? Or only in airports? Seems a slippery slope.


This is only a slippery slope for white guys who think "The Law" is fair and always should be absolute.

I feel sorry for you.
 
2012-07-21 12:16:37 PM  
The TSA isn't a threat to anyone, just an annoyance. Now if he wants to strip for liberty at the FBI, NSA, DEA, or DoHS HQ's, he might have a point, though he'd still be making it wrong.
 
2012-07-21 12:26:23 PM  

Evil Mackerel: Why is it always the ugly ones?


The human form in its natural state is generally quite ugly. All people have all sorts of bodily defects: lopsided breasts, stretch marks, beer guts, flab, cellulite, etc. About the only time the human body is perfect is as a baby, and even then it's debatable. Personal opinions on what constitutes the perception of what is hot or not so to speak really cloud our judgement, especially if one considers that if we were all nude all the time, this would not be an issue.

As for Fark_Guy_Rob: context is important. And in this case the guy got not 'free pass' as you say but justice due to the nature and intent of his nudity. I do agree it was silly though, but the point was made that the TSA is really nothing but theater.

Nudity in and of itself is not wrong. For as ugly as it is the human body is quite beautiful.
 
2012-07-21 12:41:29 PM  
Sir Godiva? That should be LORD Godiva
DRTFA
 
2012-07-21 12:46:28 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Running around naked isn't a right (well, apparently it is in Oregon outside of Portland), but free speech is.


Even here in Portland we have the annual naked bike ride.
The annual dyke march often has topless women.
I think the slut walk had some topless women.
Heck, most protests of any kind here often have a handful of people with slogans/symbols painted on their bare skin.
 
2012-07-21 12:55:57 PM  
While I am probably damning myself to a 3 hour cavity search next time I fly, I think the anti-TSA crowd are a bunch of self-important drama queens. I have never had a problem with a TSA agent and notice if you are nice to them they are nice to you. If you were a TSA agent and somebody had an attitude with you for no reason other than they don't like your job, how would you act towards that person. Think about it. Plus I really don't think it is that big of a sacrifice to try to prevent from being blown up in a pressurized tube miles in the air.
 
2012-07-21 01:01:10 PM  
John Brennan, and more importantly The First Amendment, win. Everyone who saw that picture, well, that is more of a loss.

Still, good job, John!
 
2012-07-21 01:02:56 PM  

Hermione_Granger:
This is only a slippery slope for white guys who think "The Law" is fair and always should be absolute.

I feel sorry for you.


To be fair, it seemed to me like he was saying that enforcement of the law should be uniform. He was making no judgements on whether the law in question was a good law or a bad one.

Personally, I have a hard time disagreeing with that sentiment. If enforcement of laws is that flexible, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having laws in the first place?
 
2012-07-21 01:08:46 PM  

DrExplosion: Hermione_Granger:
This is only a slippery slope for white guys who think "The Law" is fair and always should be absolute.

I feel sorry for you.

To be fair, it seemed to me like he was saying that enforcement of the law should be uniform. He was making no judgements on whether the law in question was a good law or a bad one.

Personally, I have a hard time disagreeing with that sentiment. If enforcement of laws is that flexible, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having laws in the first place?


Considering the number of archaic laws still in the books, and no effort by legislators to clean them up, flexibility seems reasonable. How many states still have sodomy laws on the books?
 
2012-07-21 01:10:54 PM  

heavymetal: While I am probably damning myself to a 3 hour cavity search next time I fly, I think the anti-TSA crowd are a bunch of self-important drama queens. I have never had a problem with a TSA agent and notice if you are nice to them they are nice to you. If you were a TSA agent and somebody had an attitude with you for no reason other than they don't like your job, how would you act towards that person. Think about it.


I'm with you so far - I'm sure most TSA agents are just people trying to make a living, and being a dick to them doesn't really solve anything. Better to go after the people who actually write these stupid policies in the first place.

heavymetal: Plus I really don't think it is that big of a sacrifice to try to prevent from being blown up in a pressurized tube miles in the air.


Aaand here's where you lose me. Fark you and everything you stand for. My rights are more important than your false sense of security.
 
2012-07-21 01:19:34 PM  

DrExplosion: heavymetal: While I am probably damning myself to a 3 hour cavity search next time I fly, I think the anti-TSA crowd are a bunch of self-important drama queens. I have never had a problem with a TSA agent and notice if you are nice to them they are nice to you. If you were a TSA agent and somebody had an attitude with you for no reason other than they don't like your job, how would you act towards that person. Think about it.

I'm with you so far - I'm sure most TSA agents are just people trying to make a living, and being a dick to them doesn't really solve anything. Better to go after the people who actually write these stupid policies in the first place.

heavymetal: Plus I really don't think it is that big of a sacrifice to try to prevent from being blown up in a pressurized tube miles in the air.

Aaand here's where you lose me. Fark you and everything you stand for. My rights are more important than your false sense of security.


^this
 
2012-07-21 01:25:55 PM  
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it." -Thoreau
 
2012-07-21 01:26:18 PM  

badhatharry: Fark_Guy_Rob: I think the TSA is a complete waste of time and money. I'd thrilled if they shut it down tomorrow.

Having said that - I don't see how this can be innocent. Right or wrong - we live in a society where we don't want our children staring at some 50 year old dude's junk when we go out in public. We have laws that help ensure we don't have to deal with that. This guy broke that law....to make a point. Good for him. Point made.

But he still broke a perfectly valid law.

Since I also dislike the TSA - can I walk around naked everywhere I go? Or only in airports? Seems a slippery slope.

A much more dangerous slippery slope is allowing a government agency to search us without probable cause. We are allowing them to break a perfectly valid law.


Exactly. How can a government agency require you to give up a Constitutional Right (4th Amendment) in order to use a commercially-provided service? Does having a right to be "secure in my person" mean that a government agent has the right to grope my swimsuit parts -- as long as they're covered by cloth?
 
2012-07-21 01:26:42 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Society, as a whole, feels it's a crime.


Society, as a whole, feels there should be no TSA.
 
2012-07-21 01:28:39 PM  

King Something: Evil Mackerel: Why is it always the ugly ones?

It's one of the rules of life: the only people who you'll ever see naked in public are the people you don't want to see naked in public. Nudist beaches are the most obvious example; another is the fact that women can legally go topless on the New York City Subway (indeed, it's legal for any person to ride the train with naught but a loin cloth and flip-flops) but you'll never see Mila Kunis or Jessica Alba exercising this right, it's always women who could pass as body doubles for Mick Foley.

/likewise, if you see a man on a beach wearing a Speedo, chances are he looks more like Foley than like Michael Phelps


Bang! Bang!
 
2012-07-21 01:29:46 PM  

heavymetal: While I am probably damning myself to a 3 hour cavity search next time I fly, I think the anti-TSA crowd are a bunch of self-important drama queens. I have never had a problem with a TSA agent and notice if you are nice to them they are nice to you. If you were a TSA agent and somebody had an attitude with you for no reason other than they don't like your job, how would you act towards that person. Think about it. Plus I really don't think it is that big of a sacrifice to try to prevent from being blown up in a pressurized tube miles in the air.


I have a difficult time taking you seriously.
TSA is proven for 10 years to be completely ineffictive against the fears you express.
To persist in failed behavior(expensive, intrusive, anti-social behavior), not to mention the damage done to personal liberty and trust in "the System" is absolutely insane!

Your petty Nightmare Closet fears are no farking excuse.
 
2012-07-21 01:31:02 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: So long as they exist - they should be enforced.


I think we can both go back through history (even recent history) and find lots of laws that were immoral, unfair, unjust, senseless, etc. and agree that they should never have been enforced.
 
2012-07-21 01:34:03 PM  

WordyGrrl: badhatharry: Fark_Guy_Rob: I think the TSA is a complete waste of time and money. I'd thrilled if they shut it down tomorrow.

Having said that - I don't see how this can be innocent. Right or wrong - we live in a society where we don't want our children staring at some 50 year old dude's junk when we go out in public. We have laws that help ensure we don't have to deal with that. This guy broke that law....to make a point. Good for him. Point made.

But he still broke a perfectly valid law.

Since I also dislike the TSA - can I walk around naked everywhere I go? Or only in airports? Seems a slippery slope.

A much more dangerous slippery slope is allowing a government agency to search us without probable cause. We are allowing them to break a perfectly valid law.

Exactly. How can a government agency require you to give up a Constitutional Right (4th Amendment) in order to use a commercially-provided service? Does having a right to be "secure in my person" mean that a government agent has the right to grope my swimsuit parts -- as long as they're covered by cloth?


Give up your guns and see what else the goobermint will suddenly disappear.
We found giving up liberties in any measure is no solution. Time and again we have reproven that.
Time to correct the errors perpetrated to rape the Constitution.

Ladies and Gentlemen, your marching orders are clear.
It's naked time at the airport.
 
2012-07-21 01:34:45 PM  

snocone: heavymetal: While I am probably damning myself to a 3 hour cavity search next time I fly, I think the anti-TSA crowd are a bunch of self-important drama queens. I have never had a problem with a TSA agent and notice if you are nice to them they are nice to you. If you were a TSA agent and somebody had an attitude with you for no reason other than they don't like your job, how would you act towards that person. Think about it. Plus I really don't think it is that big of a sacrifice to try to prevent from being blown up in a pressurized tube miles in the air.

I have a difficult time taking you seriously.
TSA is proven for 10 years to be completely ineffictive against the fears you express.
To persist in failed behavior(expensive, intrusive, anti-social behavior), not to mention the damage done to personal liberty and trust in "the System" is absolutely insane!

Your petty Nightmare Closet fears are no farking excuse.


What are you talking about? Not a single terrorist has made it past the TSA and blown up a single plane. It is clear the the TSA is doing a damn good job of protecting the airplanes from terrorists.

:-D
 
2012-07-21 01:36:24 PM  

TheGreenMonkey: Evil Mackerel: Why is it always the ugly ones?

The human form in its natural state is generally quite ugly. All people have all sorts of bodily defects: lopsided breasts, stretch marks, beer guts, flab, cellulite, etc. About the only time the human body is perfect is as a baby, and even then it's debatable. Personal opinions on what constitutes the perception of what is hot or not so to speak really cloud our judgement, especially if one considers that if we were all nude all the time, this would not be an issue.

As for Fark_Guy_Rob: context is important. And in this case the guy got not 'free pass' as you say but justice due to the nature and intent of his nudity. I do agree it was silly though, but the point was made that the TSA is really nothing but theater.

Nudity in and of itself is not wrong. For as ugly as it is the human body is quite beautiful.


It is the best thing on this planet, is it not?
 
2012-07-21 01:39:07 PM  

Mock26: snocone: heavymetal: While I am probably damning myself to a 3 hour cavity search next time I fly, I think the anti-TSA crowd are a bunch of self-important drama queens. I have never had a problem with a TSA agent and notice if you are nice to them they are nice to you. If you were a TSA agent and somebody had an attitude with you for no reason other than they don't like your job, how would you act towards that person. Think about it. Plus I really don't think it is that big of a sacrifice to try to prevent from being blown up in a pressurized tube miles in the air.

I have a difficult time taking you seriously.
TSA is proven for 10 years to be completely ineffictive against the fears you express.
To persist in failed behavior(expensive, intrusive, anti-social behavior), not to mention the damage done to personal liberty and trust in "the System" is absolutely insane!

Your petty Nightmare Closet fears are no farking excuse.

What are you talking about? Not a single terrorist has made it past the TSA and blown up a single plane. It is clear the the TSA is doing a damn good job of protecting the airplanes from terrorists.

:-D


Sorry, but it ain't funny any longer, McGee.
Every single attempt by TSA itself internally or outside security companies to test "security" have SUCCEDED!
EVERY FARKING ONE!
 
2012-07-21 01:40:55 PM  

simplicimus: Considering the number of archaic laws still in the books, and no effort by legislators to clean them up, flexibility seems reasonable. How many states still have sodomy laws on the books?


A fair point, though I still consider consistent enforcement of laws to be important. I also don't have a problem with some "bad" laws basically being ignored, as long as they're consistently ignored. It's when some people get away with breaking a stupid law, but other people get hammered for it, that I really have a problem with it.

I mean, how many people have had their lives ruined for breaking the same law as the guy in TFA? When people can't expect laws to be enforced fairly, they tend to just say "fark it" and ignore laws altogether.


That said, I'm still in favor of the judge working around it like TuteTibiImperes described, because that's giving a legal justification for his enforcement of the law.
 
2012-07-21 01:41:31 PM  

Following the Aurora incident, all I can say is:

www.kvewtv.com

Coming soon to all theaters near you

 
2012-07-21 01:44:48 PM  

snocone: TheGreenMonkey: Evil Mackerel: Why is it always the ugly ones?

The human form in its natural state is generally quite ugly. All people have all sorts of bodily defects: lopsided breasts, stretch marks, beer guts, flab, cellulite, etc. About the only time the human body is perfect is as a baby, and even then it's debatable. Personal opinions on what constitutes the perception of what is hot or not so to speak really cloud our judgement, especially if one considers that if we were all nude all the time, this would not be an issue.

As for Fark_Guy_Rob: context is important. And in this case the guy got not 'free pass' as you say but justice due to the nature and intent of his nudity. I do agree it was silly though, but the point was made that the TSA is really nothing but theater.

Nudity in and of itself is not wrong. For as ugly as it is the human body is quite beautiful.

It is the best thing on this planet, is it not?


Nope. It's mountains.
 
2012-07-21 01:51:57 PM  

snocone: Mock26: snocone: heavymetal: While I am probably damning myself to a 3 hour cavity search next time I fly, I think the anti-TSA crowd are a bunch of self-important drama queens. I have never had a problem with a TSA agent and notice if you are nice to them they are nice to you. If you were a TSA agent and somebody had an attitude with you for no reason other than they don't like your job, how would you act towards that person. Think about it. Plus I really don't think it is that big of a sacrifice to try to prevent from being blown up in a pressurized tube miles in the air.

I have a difficult time taking you seriously.
TSA is proven for 10 years to be completely ineffictive against the fears you express.
To persist in failed behavior(expensive, intrusive, anti-social behavior), not to mention the damage done to personal liberty and trust in "the System" is absolutely insane!

Your petty Nightmare Closet fears are no farking excuse.

What are you talking about? Not a single terrorist has made it past the TSA and blown up a single plane. It is clear the the TSA is doing a damn good job of protecting the airplanes from terrorists.

:-D

Sorry, but it ain't funny any longer, McGee.
Every single attempt by TSA itself internally or outside security companies to test "security" have SUCCEDED!
EVERY FARKING ONE!


But still no terrorists!

:-D
 
2012-07-21 02:07:11 PM  

Mock26: snocone: Mock26: snocone: heavymetal: While I am probably damning myself to a 3 hour cavity search next time I fly, I think the anti-TSA crowd are a bunch of self-important drama queens. I have never had a problem with a TSA agent and notice if you are nice to them they are nice to you. If you were a TSA agent and somebody had an attitude with you for no reason other than they don't like your job, how would you act towards that person. Think about it. Plus I really don't think it is that big of a sacrifice to try to prevent from being blown up in a pressurized tube miles in the air.

I have a difficult time taking you seriously.
TSA is proven for 10 years to be completely ineffictive against the fears you express.
To persist in failed behavior(expensive, intrusive, anti-social behavior), not to mention the damage done to personal liberty and trust in "the System" is absolutely insane!

Your petty Nightmare Closet fears are no farking excuse.

What are you talking about? Not a single terrorist has made it past the TSA and blown up a single plane. It is clear the the TSA is doing a damn good job of protecting the airplanes from terrorists.

:-D

Sorry, but it ain't funny any longer, McGee.
Every single attempt by TSA itself internally or outside security companies to test "security" have SUCCEDED!
EVERY FARKING ONE!

But still no terrorists!

:-D


That just means they ran out of suicidal idiots.

/always in limited supply
 
2012-07-21 02:19:47 PM  
I'm flying early tomorrow morning so, I'm getting a real kick out of these comments.

/older
//not stripping my clothes off in protest
///Fark the TSA
 
2012-07-21 02:34:17 PM  
If you're still screwing around on the Internet after 50, you need to get a life.
 
2012-07-21 02:46:18 PM  
Think I should consider some of the jobs in Oregon. It's a long move, but it *seems* to be one of the places in this nation that hasn't completely lost it's shiat.

studebaker hoch: If you're still screwing around on the Internet after 50, you need to get a life.


get a load of this guy

you should yell upstairs for mom to get you more pizza bites
 
2012-07-21 02:49:58 PM  
Middle aged Oregon hippy does more for American values than the entire collection of redneck Jingoistic USA chanting assholes combined.
 
2012-07-21 03:01:45 PM  

snocone:
Ladies and Gentlemen, your marching orders are clear.
It's naked time at the airport.


I love the idea. You don't actually need a ticket to get in the security line, just to get through it. A flash mob could be organized to all get into the line for the same terminal and at the appointed time, start stripping. It would certainly make the news, and it's not like they would arrest 100 people all at once for a protest.


/Also, every time I hear 'naked time' it reminds me of this Dana Carvey bit: Link
 
2012-07-21 03:15:38 PM  

penthesilea: TuteTibiImperes: Running around naked isn't a right (well, apparently it is in Oregon outside of Portland), but free speech is.

Even here in Portland we have the annual naked bike ride.
The annual dyke march often has topless women.
I think the slut walk had some topless women.
Heck, most protests of any kind here often have a handful of people with slogans/symbols painted on their bare skin.


Ah yes, Little Beirut. Many people find it odd that nudity in itself is not illegal. Why should it be? Seeing somebody naked isn't going to harm your child but freaking out because they are naked will make a definite imprint on the kid's brain.
Als, Oregon has fewer churches, more sex clubs and strip clubs, legal medical weed and one of the lowest murder rates in the nation. Coincidence? I think not.
 
2012-07-21 03:23:40 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: But he still broke a perfectly valid law.

Since I also dislike the TSA - can I walk around naked everywhere I go? Or only in airports? Seems a slippery slope.


Oregon's state constitution has repeatedly held that nudity as a performance or protest is protected speech.
 
2012-07-21 03:31:50 PM  

AbbeySomeone: penthesilea: TuteTibiImperes: Running around naked isn't a right (well, apparently it is in Oregon outside of Portland), but free speech is.

Even here in Portland we have the annual naked bike ride.
The annual dyke march often has topless women.
I think the slut walk had some topless women.
Heck, most protests of any kind here often have a handful of people with slogans/symbols painted on their bare skin.

Ah yes, Little Beirut. Many people find it odd that nudity in itself is not illegal. Why should it be? Seeing somebody naked isn't going to harm your child but freaking out because they are naked will make a definite imprint on the kid's brain.
Als, Oregon has fewer churches, more sex clubs and strip clubs, legal medical weed and one of the lowest murder rates in the nation. Coincidence? I think not.


I'm a fan of casual nudity, legal marijuana, and not being murdered. Perhaps I should check this Oregon place out. The weather has to be better than FL in the summer at least.
 
2012-07-21 03:36:27 PM  
This headline would have gotten more clicks: "Godiva, who stripped naked for the TSA says liberty has trumped modesty in court appearance"
 
2012-07-21 03:37:41 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I'm a fan of casual nudity, legal marijuana, and not being murdered. Perhaps I should check this Oregon place out. The weather has to be better than FL in the summer at least.


Currently 72 with a high of 79 today.
 
2012-07-21 04:54:19 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Laws against public nudity exist for a reason (whether or not it's a valid reason is another discussion). So long as they exist - they should be enforced.


Laws against blacks voting existed for a reason. So long as they existed, they were rightfully enforced.

Laws against gay marriage exist for a reason ...

See where I'm going? Bad laws sometimes requires drastic measures to get them overturned. However, I do wish it was lingerie models doing the protesting.
 
2012-07-21 05:07:52 PM  
Well, there's the Bucket List, i.e., things to do before you die, then there's the Box List, i.e., things to do before you retire and carry your things out of the office in a box.

I'm retiring from the Navy soon, so things on my Box List include dropping my pants at a TSA checkpoint, also, streaking the entire length of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier flight deck...

/in March, I'll be DONE flying commercial
 
2012-07-21 05:08:44 PM  
"The public doesn't perceive the TSA as being effective. They perceive them as being expensive. At a time when we're looking at budgets, they're spending a lot of money and not having a lot of impact."

Citation needed.

What is it with this circlejerk about the TSA? Who gives a shiat? Honestly, 30 seconds of inconvenience to prevent the very real threat of people bringing weapons onto a 400 ton projectile that flies close to the speed of sound is now Big Brother intruding on your neckbeard rights to never be bothered with anything, ever? God, the pretentiousness and entitlement of this generation is staggering.
 
2012-07-21 05:11:46 PM  

studebaker hoch: If you're still screwing around on the Internet after 50, you need to get a life.


shiat, I'm 46... does that mean I only get four more years on the Internet?

/Logan's Internet Run?
 
2012-07-21 05:14:10 PM  

OgreMagi: Fark_Guy_Rob: Laws against public nudity exist for a reason (whether or not it's a valid reason is another discussion). So long as they exist - they should be enforced.

Laws against blacks voting existed for a reason. So long as they existed, they were rightfully enforced.

Laws against gay marriage exist for a reason ...

See where I'm going? Bad laws sometimes requires drastic measures to get them overturned. However, I do wish it was lingerie models doing the protesting.


Uh, please expound upon the "reasons", please.

/Where are you going, I don't "see" it.
 
2012-07-21 05:18:58 PM  
Nevermind, OgreMagi, I see where you are going on second read.

/Gotcha
 
2012-07-21 06:05:33 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: snocone:
Ladies and Gentlemen, your marching orders are clear.
It's naked time at the airport.

I love the idea. You don't actually need a ticket to get in the security line, just to get through it. A flash mob could be organized to all get into the line for the same terminal and at the appointed time, start stripping. It would certainly make the news, and it's not like they would arrest 100 people all at once for a protest.


/Also, every time I hear 'naked time' it reminds me of this Dana Carvey bit: Link


ping!
 
2012-07-21 06:25:06 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: AbbeySomeone: penthesilea: TuteTibiImperes: Running around naked isn't a right (well, apparently it is in Oregon outside of Portland), but free speech is.

Even here in Portland we have the annual naked bike ride.
The annual dyke march often has topless women.
I think the slut walk had some topless women.
Heck, most protests of any kind here often have a handful of people with slogans/symbols painted on their bare skin.

Ah yes, Little Beirut. Many people find it odd that nudity in itself is not illegal. Why should it be? Seeing somebody naked isn't going to harm your child but freaking out because they are naked will make a definite imprint on the kid's brain.
Als, Oregon has fewer churches, more sex clubs and strip clubs, legal medical weed and one of the lowest murder rates in the nation. Coincidence? I think not.

I'm a fan of casual nudity, legal marijuana, and not being murdered. Perhaps I should check this Oregon place out. The weather has to be better than FL in the summer at least.


^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

/discontent Floridian
 
2012-07-21 08:17:14 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: StoneColdAtheist: Fark_Guy_Rob: Having said that - I don't see how this can be innocent. Right or wrong - we live in a society where we don't want our children staring at some 50 year old dude's junk when we go out in public. We have laws that help ensure we don't have to deal with that. This guy broke that law....to make a point. Good for him. Point made.

But he still broke a perfectly valid law.

I refuse to believe that you mean this seriously.

I meant to say 'I don't see how this guy can be innocent' but I think the gist of my point was pretty clear. And yes, I'm 100% serious.

Laws against public nudity exist for a reason (whether or not it's a valid reason is another discussion). So long as they exist - they should be enforced.

This guy clearly broke those laws. I don't see any justification, in this case, for an exception to be made because he was at the airport or near the TSA or didn't like the TSA.

He wasn't in any direct or immediate danger. He took off his clothes to make a point. Can I smoke weed in the airport because I don't like TSA? Can I jerk off in the airport because I don't like TSA? Can I carry a gun in the airport because I don't like TSA?

What laws do we get to ignore because we don't like the TSA? Can I burn a TSA poster at the airport? Is that okay because I'm protesting?

It all just seems silly to me. No, I don't think the guy is a serious criminal. I'm not calling for jail time. I'm just saying, I don't see any reason for him to be exempt from the law. Obviously the judge disagrees me, and I'll admit, the judge is more qualified than I am - but I really just don't see any reason for his ruling. Running around naked is now a first amendment right? Seems like a giant stretch to me.


We recognize that there may be times when a violation of a law may be carried out in the course of pursuing a greater good, or that the violation was not intentional.

This is why we have judges. We have judges to say, "I know you got naked in public, but your clothes were on fire so we're not going to punish you."

Or to say "I know you got naked in public, but it was in the course of exercising your first amendment right to free speech, so we're not going to punish you."

If you don't believe there should be mitigating circumstances taken into consideration when considering possible violations of the law, then we can just get rid of judges and have computer programs hear cases.
 
2012-07-22 01:57:47 AM  

struct: What is it with this circlejerk about the TSA? Who gives a shiat? Honestly, 30 seconds of inconvenience to prevent the very real threat of people bringing weapons onto a 400 ton projectile that flies close to the speed of sound is now Big Brother intruding on your neckbeard rights to never be bothered with anything, ever? God, the pretentiousness and entitlement of this generation is staggering.


1. It's not 30 seconds. Last time I had to go through a TSA checkpoint it took closer to 15 minutes.
2. People 'sneak' weapons, including hand grenades, past the checkpoints during testing all the time. Knives, even big ones have a very good chance of getting through undetected.
3. Metal detectors are actually more reliable for catching the serious stuff; IE guns; than the X-Ray machines they're subjecting us to now.

Really, as long as you can keep the terrorists from getting guns or a big bomb(of a type that requires a substantial amount of metal) onto the craft, the regular passangers have shown a 100% success rate at subduing attackers on board now that the default reaction is to rush, not stand by for the experts. It was the culture of submission, not the lack of the TSA, that allowed 9/11. They wouldn't have been able to take the plane with box cutters against the passangers and crew if they hadn't been trained to follow the directions of hostage takers and let the police and negotiators arrange release.

AbbeySomeone: Ah yes, Little Beirut. Many people find it odd that nudity in itself is not illegal. Why should it be? Seeing somebody naked isn't going to harm your child but freaking out because they are naked will make a definite imprint on the kid's brain.


Bingo. There are tribes where everybody runs around mostly nude all the time. Kids grow up fine. There are ones where they make their ears great loops, disconnect their lip to stick a plate in there(it was the fasion of the time...), etc...

Kids take cues from their parents, other adults, older kids and peers. No big deal about nudity? Kid won't see it as a big deal. Animals run around naked at the time, why not people? On the other end you have the daughter of one of the women who was on the flight that landed in the Hudson. She was suing for counseling for the 'mental trauma' her 2 year old suffered. Yeah right, the daughter picked up that her mother thought it should be a big traumatic deal, and made it so. With my parents I'd have thought it great fun. Note to others: I know full well that a mother and child will be the FIRST pulled off the slowly sinking plane by the first boats there, and the occupants will likely be pulling their own coats off to keep them warm if necessary. I'd of thought of it as a big adventure.

heavymetal: Plus I really don't think it is that big of a sacrifice to try to prevent from being blown up in a pressurized tube miles in the air.


Okay, I agree with you on the first part - 99% of the time, when you hear about an incident, it's when an asshole meets an asshole. If one side is nice, nothing happens. If both sides are nice, everything goes smoothly.

Still, this guy tested positive for nitrates, which means he was going to get the 'deluxe' screening. Which, by my understanding, is a search on a level that somebody who's not all that body concious visually but dislikes touching by strangers, would be more objectional than simply stripping bare.

Finally, part of the problem is that so many people, at least those on the internet, see the TSA as 'security theater', IE it's NOT EFFECTIVE. For the TSA is so expensive in manpower and time that we could suffer a 9/11 every decade(but we don't) and it'd still be cheaper. Nobody is objecting to the most reasonable changes - arming pilots; securing the flight door; giving airline attendants more force options(taser/pepper spray), and having fellow passangers put down anybody who tries anything.

Fark_Guy_Rob: Except he didn't break any of the laws he objected to. The law he broke was taking off his clothes. He's not protesting *that* law.


People generally didn't break the old segregation laws in protest - they broke trespassing ones and such.

How do you propose 'breaking' the TSA laws directly? Sneak a bomb or weapon in? That's a serious felony, even a fake one is. Perhaps worse, it's one that 99.99% of people would agree to you being convicted for pulling. Refuse to present your boarding pass or be searched? That's actually legal, but will likely result in you being searched by force and you'll certainly be denied entry into the secure area.

And by most reports people have been half-boycotting already - the range at which people drive has increased, people have avoided trips, etc... But you don't have that much choice when leaving the continent, when speed is an issue, etc...

So, he very much did violate the rights of others who had nothing to do with the TSA's procedures.


I don't consider 'freedom from seeing nude people' a right. Much like how we don't have a 'right' to not hear things we don't want to. Indeed, with the 1st we have much the opposite in some ways.

If he wanted to protest the TSA by NOT submitting to their search - I'd fully support that as civil disobedience. But I see no connection between stripping in public and the need to express dislike of the TSA.

Like I said earlier, it's not civil disobedience to refuse the search, unless you subsequently try to force your way past security. Of course, then it's a airport-shutting down, your ass is getting beat felony that most people will agree with.
 
2012-07-22 02:13:41 AM  

Firethorn: struct: What is it with this circlejerk about the TSA? Who gives a shiat? Honestly, 30 seconds of inconvenience to prevent the very real threat of people bringing weapons onto a 400 ton projectile that flies close to the speed of sound is now Big Brother intruding on your neckbeard rights to never be bothered with anything, ever? God, the pretentiousness and entitlement of this generation is staggering.

1. It's not 30 seconds. Last time I had to go through a TSA checkpoint it took closer to 15 minutes.
2. People 'sneak' weapons, including hand grenades, past the checkpoints during testing all the time. Knives, even big ones have a very good chance of getting through undetected.
3. Metal detectors are actually more reliable for catching the serious stuff; IE guns; than the X-Ray machines they're subjecting us to now.

Really, as long as you can keep the terrorists from getting guns or a big bomb(of a type that requires a substantial amount of metal) onto the craft, the regular passangers have shown a 100% success rate at subduing attackers on board now that the default reaction is to rush, not stand by for the experts. It was the culture of submission, not the lack of the TSA, that allowed 9/11. They wouldn't have been able to take the plane with box cutters against the passangers and crew if they hadn't been trained to follow the directions of hostage takers and let the police and negotiators arrange release.


So your argument is to let small stuff pass through and leave it to the passengers because they can handle it? That sounds reckless. I find it hard to believe that increased security has no effect on what slips through, it has to be a little less. And besides, I never remembered there not being a checkpoint, its longer now, but its not like we never had it.
 
2012-07-22 05:51:47 AM  

struct: So your argument is to let small stuff pass through and leave it to the passengers because they can handle it? That sounds reckless. I find it hard to believe that increased security has no effect on what slips through, it has to be a little less. And besides, I never remembered there not being a checkpoint, its longer now, but its not like we never had it.


My argument would be that it's effectively impossible to keep the small stuff out. Hell, we can't even keep the 'small stuff' like knives/shivs out of our maximum security prisons. How the heck can we hope to keep them out of airports, most of which have many orders of magnitude more traffic in/out than said prisons?

While I don't have college credit for it, I've had professional risk management training. I work in computer security, but it coincides with physical security as well. The math is fairly simple in a basic sense. Take your threat(fire/flood/earthquake/terrorists). Consider the average cost of the damage if it happens (x), and the average probability it happens (y). If the cost of the countermeasures to prevent the threat is less than X*Y, you don't impliment. It gets a bit more complicated when you consider that there's probability ranges for different damage amounts, and that countermeasures don't typically totally eliminate the risk, so doing a really good assessment does get into complex math, but the basics are simple. The conclusion is basically simple: With some basic changes we've reduced the risk enough that the rest of the expenditures of the TSA exceed their positive benefits.

Besides, I didn't just specify passangers. I also specified as worth it relatively cheap measures such as the reinforced doors, arming at least some of the pilots(a lot are former military) with firearms, giving attendants non-lethal options such as tasers and pepper spray, and keeping the metal detectors. The old security checks were the 30 second ones; I don't object to those.

My non-security theater answer: Keep the metal detectors, spend more money on training those viewing the x-rays. Keep the explosives detectors and x-ray everything going onto the plane, including fedex packages and such. Don't bother with 'nudie scanners' trying to find small non-metallic objects, and small bottles of liquid explosives(not all that effective, extremely hard to impliment, and basically never done by actual terrorist organizations as opposed to lab chemists). Don't bother making people take their shoes off unless they have metal inserts. Small non-metallic knives and such aren't actually all that great, about equal to other improvised weapons. Just make sure the terrorists will be in the same 'weight category' as the other passangers and the problem will take care of itself.
 
2012-07-22 01:11:07 PM  

struct: Firethorn: struct: What is it with this circlejerk about the TSA? Who gives a shiat? Honestly, 30 seconds of inconvenience to prevent the very real threat of people bringing weapons onto a 400 ton projectile that flies close to the speed of sound is now Big Brother intruding on your neckbeard rights to never be bothered with anything, ever? God, the pretentiousness and entitlement of this generation is staggering.


Ya know, it takes mere seconds to "show your papers" to any cop who decides to ask to see them, yet we as a society have decided, based on centuries of abuse of authority, that we are unwilling to accept that sort of behavior from our elected and appointed authorities.

Based on your comments, though, one presumes you'd be okay with that.

2.bp.blogspot.com

So your argument is to let small stuff pass through and leave it to the passengers because they can handle it? That sounds reckless. I find it hard to believe that increased security has no effect on what slips through, it has to be a little less. And besides, I never remembered there not being a checkpoint, its longer now, but its not like we never had it.

There is a world of difference between a private company setting a magnetic scan as a condition of entry into their business (the airplane), and the government deciding to search you to any degree them deem fit in the absence of probable cause. (You DO realize that it was the airlines doing security checks prior to TSA taking it over, right?)

The difference may seem trivial to you (and others), but it isn't to me, and I applaud Sir Godiva.

/remembers flying when there were NO security checks
 
Displayed 86 of 86 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report