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.

(Wired)   Man who was arrested at TSA checkpoint for having text of 4th amendment printed on his torso wins court case for false arrest and violation of his civil rights to the tune of $250,000   (wired.com) divider line 234
    More: Spiffy, misdemeanors, TSA, false arrest, civil rights, amendments, court cases, Henrico County, x-ray machines  
•       •       •

29215 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2013 at 11:45 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-27 12:13:06 AM  

Earl of Chives: tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.

fark you?


Actually that one is easy to answer.
 
2013-01-27 12:13:57 AM  

gingerjet: blottoman: He looks like a young superman...

[league.jmkprime.org image 802x600]

/4 the ladies

I bet he has better acting skills.


LOL!!
 
2013-01-27 12:17:51 AM  
I worked for TSA for 8.5 years and talked about it a lot here on Fark. When I filed a sexual discrimination letter against my Sup. they promptly fired me for disclosing SSI here on Fark and so I lawyered up and am suing them currently.
 
2013-01-27 12:19:15 AM  

ZAZ: He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.


In a case of this sort, it's pretty much the same thing. There isn't a factual dispute, and no available legal defense other than qualified immunity. My guess is that the plaintiff's attorney will now move for summary judgment, and probably get it.

ThrobblefootSpectre: Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.


Airports aren't private property.
 
2013-01-27 12:20:41 AM  
I've flown a ton. I hate the TSA.

But if I was in their situation, where a kid strips down with anything scribbled across their body, my first thought would be: What is he distracting me from?

He's not the threat. He's the pawn to distract everyone while the real threat(s) get through security.

/CSB
 
2013-01-27 12:20:53 AM  

BMulligan: Airports aren't private property.


Which is why you aren't searched before entering an airport. Only before boarding the airline's plane.
 
2013-01-27 12:21:11 AM  

rwhamann: No Catchy Nickname: Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.

There have been Federal law enforcement manuals exposed recently that point to possession of a copy of the Constitution as an indicator.



An indicator, maybe, but surely it's meant to be taken in context with other indicators. In this guy's case, there don't appear to be any other indicators.


Attention-seeking, perhaps, but worthy of detainment and interrogation, no.
 
2013-01-27 12:21:28 AM  
Imagine if it had been the 2nd Amendment on his shirt.
 
2013-01-27 12:22:35 AM  
Is diggin it...

starcasm.net
 
2013-01-27 12:23:57 AM  
"According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know 'about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.'"

Might fine security work there, Lou.

"Are you with a terrorist organization?"

"No."

OMG the terrorist has outsmarted us! He's just too clever!!
 
2013-01-27 12:25:00 AM  
Oops, wrong thread
Oh, beer is beauty.
 
2013-01-27 12:25:04 AM  
The descending judge offered up a failed view by striking out at the young man for using up TSA resources at a time of need. For fark sakes, it was TSA decision to detain and arrest. TSA could have said "oh how funny" and then proceeded to let him go.
 
2013-01-27 12:25:20 AM  

metlboy: Kraftwerk Orange: ExcaliburPrime111: The kid created a scene in a security-screening area and was detained. Did he need to be handcuffed for 90 minutes? No. Should they have just searched him and got him on his way? Yes. In any case, he made the flight.

He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.

While this whole thing seems like a waste of time, and I hate to defend the TSA, from the article it didn't sound like they made him strip. It sounded like he just took his clothes off of his own volition. In an airport (or anywhere but a bath house), that's probably going to create a scene.


Like the US we in Australia have had some pretty stupid rules about air safety in many airports since September 11 2001. I say 'many' airports because there are still regional airports where passengers can board a commercial flight with no screening of themselves or their luggage whatsoever. But it seems that our rules, as nonsensical as they can appear, are nowhere near as intrusive as in the US.

The TSA would be very used to passengers being pissed at them; even if passengers say or do nothing particularly unusual, their body language would scream "why the hell am I putting up with this lunacy?". Some Americans, if I've understood you guys correctly, would not be able to hold your tongues and would express their annoyance and dissatisfaction. TSA officials would surely experience this on a daily if not hourly basis. Perhaps Tonguedepressor and his 8.5 years TSA experience can confirm or disconfirm this statement.

The guy pointing out the 4th amendment having declined to go through the body scanner but exposing his body to a similar degree as the scanner would reveal is only going one step further. Nothing that deserves a 90-minute handcuffing or questioning about terrorist activity. Yeah it's a bit unusual but it's a simple and legal protest in an environment that most passengers feel a desire to make their own protest, even if most don't follow through on this.
 
2013-01-27 12:28:42 AM  
Bravo young man. Bravo.
 
2013-01-27 12:30:00 AM  
Was the only article of clothing he took off his shirt? If so, how is that "stripping" and why is it arrest-worthy?

It's amazing, the people here trying to defend the TSA.
 
2013-01-27 12:33:42 AM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


Did you answer an advertisement for the job on a pizza box?
 
2013-01-27 12:34:21 AM  

Aussie_As: metlboy: Kraftwerk Orange: ExcaliburPrime111: The kid created a scene in a security-screening area and was detained. Did he need to be handcuffed for 90 minutes? No. Should they have just searched him and got him on his way? Yes. In any case, he made the flight.

He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.

While this whole thing seems like a waste of time, and I hate to defend the TSA, from the article it didn't sound like they made him strip. It sounded like he just took his clothes off of his own volition. In an airport (or anywhere but a bath house), that's probably going to create a scene.

Like the US we in Australia have had some pretty stupid rules about air safety in many airports since September 11 2001. I say 'many' airports because there are still regional airports where passengers can board a commercial flight with no screening of themselves or their luggage whatsoever. But it seems that our rules, as nonsensical as they can appear, are nowhere near as intrusive as in the US.

The TSA would be very used to passengers being pissed at them; even if passengers say or do nothing particularly unusual, their body language would scream "why the hell am I putting up with this lunacy?". Some Americans, if I've understood you guys correctly, would not be able to hold your tongues and would express their annoyance and dissatisfaction. TSA officials would surely experience this on a daily if not hourly basis. Perhaps Tonguedepressor and his 8.5 years TSA experience can confirm or disconfirm this statement.

The guy pointing out the 4th amendment having declined to go through the body scanner but exposing his body to a similar degree as the scanner would reveal is only going one step further. Nothing that deserves a 90-minute handcuffing or questioning about terrorist activity. Yeah it's a bit unusual but it's a simple and legal protest in an environment that most passenger ...


Yeah, not so much. People more or less just wanted to get through the experience with the most positive attitude possible, at least in my experience.
I rarely had trouble w/ passengers but I was nice to everyone, it just helped make the job more bearable.
 
2013-01-27 12:35:08 AM  
DNRTFA, thought it was printed on his shirt. After review, it does strike me as a little attention-whorish, but certainly not an arrestable offense.
 
2013-01-27 12:35:37 AM  

Amusement: The descending judge offered up a failed view by striking out at the young man for using up TSA resources at a time of need. For fark sakes, it was TSA decision to detain and arrest. TSA could have said "oh how funny" and then proceeded to let him go.


forward-now.com
 
2013-01-27 12:35:58 AM  
not a SPIFFY tag subby, next time try a HERO tag.
 
2013-01-27 12:36:04 AM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.

Did you answer an advertisement for the job on a pizza box?


Nope. Was there from stand up. At least for the checked baggage side of screening. We cam in about 6 months after check point screening. Back then it wasn't a dual function and we were called screeners not officers.
 
2013-01-27 12:36:16 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: BMulligan: Airports aren't private property.

Which is why you aren't searched before entering an airport. Only before boarding the airline's plane.


You are searched while you are in the airport. That's public property. You are searched by employees of the federal government, pursuant to federal statutes and regulations promulgated by a federal administrative agency. It's all state action, no matter how you look at it, and to the extent that there are any gray areas in play here they have been well-litigated. You are simply and inarguably wrong.
 
2013-01-27 12:40:27 AM  
What the hell is "Amendment HI"?
 
2013-01-27 12:40:37 AM  

Oznog: "According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know 'about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.'"


"I want to sail around the world in a schooner. Nike told me they would sponsor me if I agreed to do this stunt, and if I agreed to sail shirtless with the Nike logo tattooed over my rippling shoulders. Have you ever been in a Turkish prison? I want to be washed by another man..."
 
2013-01-27 12:41:50 AM  

GoldSpider: DNRTFA, thought it was printed on his shirt. After review, it does strike me as a little attention-whorish, but certainly not an arrestable offense.


Indeed it's not, but as I understand it, this wasn't an arrest, except in the same way that pulling you over for speeding is an arrest. This is a civil suit for False Imprisonment, a tort with some specific standards to qualify. I think the DoJ goofed in arguing qualified immunity, there are other ways they could have gone where this would never have survived summary judgment. It's kind of similar to how a store owner can detain a suspected shoplifter given certain conditions.
 
2013-01-27 12:43:32 AM  

BMulligan: You are simply and inarguably wrong.


Lol. As "wrong" as the supreme court and every single circuit and appellate court that has ever heard a case on the subject and upheld the searches, yes. Not a bad kind of wrong to be, I guess.

"As other circuits have held, and as the Supreme Court has strongly suggested, screening passengers at an airport is an "administrative search" because the primary goal is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack.....An administrative search does not require individualized suspicion. ...Instead, whether an administrative search is "unreasonable" within the condemnation of the Fourth Amendment "is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118-19 (2001)....
 
2013-01-27 12:44:34 AM  

Last Man on Earth: GoldSpider: DNRTFA, thought it was printed on his shirt. After review, it does strike me as a little attention-whorish, but certainly not an arrestable offense.

Indeed it's not, but as I understand it, this wasn't an arrest, except in the same way that pulling you over for speeding is an arrest. This is a civil suit for False Imprisonment, a tort with some specific standards to qualify. I think the DoJ goofed in arguing qualified immunity, there are other ways they could have gone where this would never have survived summary judgment. It's kind of similar to how a store owner can detain a suspected shoplifter given certain conditions.


Precisely. And the case will come down to how long is it reasonable to detain a passenger for security reasons. And since he didn't miss his plane, this detainment may be ruled as acceptable.
 
2013-01-27 12:46:38 AM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


Since you no longer work for the TSA, do you now rescind your "ask you anything" statement?
 
2013-01-27 12:48:17 AM  

WorldCitizen: FTFA:

In dissent, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote:

Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey-and the distraction he was creating - from the scene.


Perhaps if the TSA agents hadn't been small minded douches having to prove how "important" they were, they would have just had a chuckle, patted the guy on the back for being snarky, and sent him on his way to his flight. Then there would have been no diversion of the "defendants" from their passenger-screening duties. THEY caused their "distraction", not some harmless kid.


true dat. besides which how did his actions "divert them from their duties" if their duties are to screen passengers? was the judge just admitting what we all know, that the TSA is theater and has no other purpose?

and while this guy was "diverting" the heroic TSA was the nefarious actor just going to waltz through while their backs were turned? keep in mind that judge dumbshiat sits on the federal appeals court. feel better now?
 
2013-01-27 12:48:47 AM  

marcre3363: I've flown a ton. I hate the TSA.

But if I was in their situation, where a kid strips down with anything scribbled across their body, my first thought would be: What is he distracting me from?

He's not the threat. He's the pawn to distract everyone while the real threat(s) get through security.

/CSB


TSA people do not watch TV cop shows and so have no idea how this kind of thing works.
 
2013-01-27 12:49:46 AM  
According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know "about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were."

quoting the constitution makes you a farking terrorist now? holy farking shiat.
 
2013-01-27 12:53:48 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: BMulligan: You are simply and inarguably wrong.

Lol. As "wrong" as the supreme court and every single circuit and appellate court that has ever heard a case on the subject and upheld the searches, yes. Not a bad kind of wrong to be, I guess.

"As other circuits have held, and as the Supreme Court has strongly suggested, screening passengers at an airport is an "administrative search" because the primary goal is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack.....An administrative search does not require individualized suspicion. ...Instead, whether an administrative search is "unreasonable" within the condemnation of the Fourth Amendment "is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118-19 (2001)....


You realize, of course, that this passage is completely inapposite - right?
 
2013-01-27 12:57:38 AM  

wambu: marcre3363: I've flown a ton. I hate the TSA.

But if I was in their situation, where a kid strips down with anything scribbled across their body, my first thought would be: What is he distracting me from?

He's not the threat. He's the pawn to distract everyone while the real threat(s) get through security.

/CSB

TSA people do not watch TV cop shows and so have no idea how this kind of thing works.


But I'm assuming they do watch shows on FOX or the WB.
 
2013-01-27 12:59:10 AM  

WorldCitizen: FTFA:

In dissent, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote:

Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey-and the distraction he was creating - from the scene.


Perhaps if the TSA agents hadn't been small minded douches having to prove how "important" they were, they would have just had a chuckle, patted the guy on the back for being snarky, and sent him on his way to his flight. Then there would have been no diversion of the "defendants" from their passenger-screening duties. THEY caused their "distraction", not some harmless kid.


My first, second, third and fourth thoughts.

If it's that easy to "distract" the TSA, then we're totally screwed.
 
2013-01-27 01:00:28 AM  

UsikFark: Oznog: "According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know 'about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.'"

"I want to sail around the world in a schooner. Nike told me they would sponsor me if I agreed to do this stunt, and if I agreed to sail shirtless with the Nike logo tattooed over my rippling shoulders. Have you ever been in a Turkish prison? I want to be washed by another man..."


I am a vile man, I confess it! My crimes and sins are beyond counting. I have lied and cheated, gambled and whored. I'm not particularly good at violence, but I'm good at convincing others to do violence for me. You want specifics, I suppose. When I was seven, I saw a servant girl bathing in the river. I stole her robe and she was forced to return to the castle naked and in tears. I close my eyes, but I can still see her tits bouncing...

When I was ten, I stuffed my uncle's boots with goat shiat. When confronted with my crime, I blamed a squire. Poor boy was flogged, and I escaped justice. When I was twelve I milked my eel into a pot of turtle stew. I flogged the one-eyed snake, I skinned my sausage. I made the bald man cry into the turtle stew, which I do believe my sister ate. At least I hope she did. I once brought a jackass and a honeycomb into a brothel...
 
2013-01-27 01:01:14 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.


This bears repeating.
(insert some clever use of a bear image being duplicated several times.)

You do not have a right to board a privately owned aircraft. Privately owned aircraft do not have the right to use publicly owned airways. Commercial airlines are required to comply with certain regulations and rules before they are allowed to travel over populated areas. Some of those regulations involve preparing and filing flight plans and submitting to instructions from air traffic controllers.

Much like the automobile regulations, you do not have the right to use self propelled machines on public property (roads). If you fail or make a mistake while trying to control one of these machines or adversely effect the person who is trying to control one, especially if this causes damage to another person, you should not be allowed to do anything like this again. I know that the laws aren't that strict, but this is the basis for all the nonsense that is drunk driving check points and the TSA. You can still travel as far and as long as you want to without using these machines. If you run into a situation, using any other methods, I will be one of the first to support and trumpet your cause.
 
2013-01-27 01:01:40 AM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


Did you ever stop a terrorist attack?
 
2013-01-27 01:08:01 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Contempt of cop is not a crime and much more importantly contempt of fake cop is not a crime


Whenever I see those videos of cops threatening arrest because some teens are "disrespecting my uniform", I wish someone had taught those kids that there is no law against treating a douche like a douche and you can't be arrested for "failure to show respect".

"Show me respect!"

"Fark you, earn my respect first."
 
2013-01-27 01:08:35 AM  
They got trolled hard.
 
2013-01-27 01:09:22 AM  
In dissent, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote:

Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey-and the distraction he was creating - from the scene.

I have to disagree. It was poor judgement, theater, and grandstanding on the part of the "law enforcement" agencies that was actually the cause of them taking their attention off searching for possible terrorists.
 
2013-01-27 01:11:19 AM  

Bumblefark: moothemagiccow: FTFJudge: Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect.

What's the line, again? "Shouldn't you be out catching bad guys?"

The dissenting opinion has to be one of the stupider things I've read in quite some time. Essentially, the logic of the argument is that one has a right to protest except to the extent that it "diverts" public safety officers.

So, it is precisely because you are doing nothing illegal that you are doing something illegal, because the officers choosing to illegally detain you have been "distracted" from catching people doing illegal things.

That's some fine jurisprudence, Lou.


He had also said something about it not being the right time or place for a protest. My belief is the best time and place for a protest against injustice is exactly when and where the injustice is occurring.
 
2013-01-27 01:12:39 AM  

Oznog: UsikFark: Oznog: "According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know 'about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.'"

"I want to sail around the world in a schooner. Nike told me they would sponsor me if I agreed to do this stunt, and if I agreed to sail shirtless with the Nike logo tattooed over my rippling shoulders. Have you ever been in a Turkish prison? I want to be washed by another man..."

I am a vile man, I confess it! My crimes and sins are beyond counting. I have lied and cheated, gambled and whored. I'm not particularly good at violence, but I'm good at convincing others to do violence for me. You want specifics, I suppose. When I was seven, I saw a servant girl bathing in the river. I stole her robe and she was forced to return to the castle naked and in tears. I close my eyes, but I can still see her tits bouncing...

When I was ten, I stuffed my uncle's boots with goat shiat. When confronted with my crime, I blamed a squire. Poor boy was flogged, and I escaped justice. When I was twelve I milked my eel into a pot of turtle stew. I flogged the one-eyed snake, I skinned my sausage. I made the bald man cry into the turtle stew, which I do believe my sister ate. At least I hope she did. I once brought a jackass and a honeycomb into a brothel...


"'Beauty, Beauty,' he whispered, 'You have conquered me as surely as I have conquered you. Don't ever arouse my jealousy again. I don't know what I would do if you did it!'"
 
2013-01-27 01:14:15 AM  

Philbb: ThrobblefootSpectre: Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.

This bears repeating.
(insert some clever use of a bear image being duplicated several times.)

You do not have a right to board a privately owned aircraft. Privately owned aircraft do not have the right to use publicly owned airways. Commercial airlines are required to comply with certain regulations and rules before they are allowed to travel over populated areas. Some of those regulations involve preparing and filing flight plans and submitting to instructions from air traffic controllers.

Much like the automobile regulations, you do not have the right to use self propelled machines on public property (roads). If you fail or make a mistake while trying to control one of these machines or adversely effect the person who is trying to control one, especially if this causes damage to another person, you should not be allowed to do anything like this again. I know that the laws aren't that strict, but this is the basis for all the nonsense that is drunk driving check points and the TSA. You can still travel as far and as long as you want to without using these machines. If you run into a situation, using any other methods, I will be one of the first to support and trumpet your cause.


This is gibberish.
 
2013-01-27 01:29:35 AM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


How does it feel knowing that when shiat hits the fan that your kind will be terminated with extreme prejudice?
 
2013-01-27 01:32:07 AM  

MurphyMurphy: themindiswatching: Weaver95: according to the TSA (and our authoritarian lovers of security theater), lawsuits like this shouldn't have gotten even this far.  if we don't gate rape EVERY passenger who gets on a plane, then the ENTIRE WORLD will come crashing down around us.  if we ask questions, we're terrorists.  if we protest - we are mocked, derided and our names are added to watch lists.

Meanwhile there are some people (mostly Freepers) who would be fine with the TSA if it only gate raped Muslims.

You've got that wrong.

Meanwhile most people are find with the TSA because they are irrationally scared of Muslims.

The islamophobia we have is akin to walking around on a clear sunny day absolutely petrified with fear that lightning is about to strike you... and it's the reason the government gets away with making things like the TSA and DHS.


Me thinks thou art a troll.
 
2013-01-27 01:34:38 AM  
why was the '4' the only character he wrote backwards?
 
2013-01-27 01:38:24 AM  
jtown

Normal, rational people do not behave like that in an airport.
1.bp.blogspot.com

cdn4.blogs.babble.com
 
2013-01-27 01:38:45 AM  

jtown: His behavior did nothing to further the cause of freedom.


But if it inspires just one hot college chick to emulate him, it was worth it.
 
2013-01-27 01:44:02 AM  

OgreMagi: Bumblefark: moothemagiccow: FTFJudge: Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect.

What's the line, again? "Shouldn't you be out catching bad guys?"

The dissenting opinion has to be one of the stupider things I've read in quite some time. Essentially, the logic of the argument is that one has a right to protest except to the extent that it "diverts" public safety officers.

So, it is precisely because you are doing nothing illegal that you are doing something illegal, because the officers choosing to illegally detain you have been "distracted" from catching people doing illegal things.

That's some fine jurisprudence, Lou.

He had also said something about it not being the right time or place for a protest. My belief is the best time and place for a protest against injustice is exactly when and where the injustice is occurring.


Yep...this idea that you're perfectly within your rights to protest so long as you do it quietly and where nobody will notice...it's disgusting, but it's also disturbingly popular these days. And not just in the courts.

Scroll through, and note the accusations of "attention whoring." Apparently, the idea that drawing attention to one self might be logically entailed in the act of "protesting" seems to be lost on a great many people.
 
2013-01-27 01:44:35 AM  
I suspect that people are defending this kid for a very valid, though ultimately incorrect reason.

I have to fly a few times a year, and I do feel a loss of dignity as I stand in line, waiting for the opportunity to take off my shoes, take out my laptop, and dump my belongings into several of the plastic trays. I feel annoyed that I must submit to these indignities, to smile and be polite to the screening officers when I show my ID and go through the metal detector, raising my hands above my head as if I am some sort of criminal, and then hastily reassembling my luggage and wearing my shoes. All while smiling, lest I look too angry, lest I get approached by a TSA officer (who may or may not have finished high school) might ask if anything is wrong, lest I vent into his/her face saying that this is inhuman and I feel criminalized for wanting to fly from Point A to Point B, and then have to miss my flight because I opened my mouth.

I get it. We all get it.

All that said, I can't think of a better way to screen people and to reduce the possibility of terrorist attack or transport of harmful substances. The kid in this case created a scene in a security screening area by taking off most of his clothes in a public area that is not a beach. He was briefly detained, screened, and did not miss his flight. I see no case for him, and more importantly, his "winning" will not change any of the feelings that I or any of us might have that I described in the previous paragraph.
 
Displayed 50 of 234 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

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