TSA agent threatens woman with defamation lawsuit.
Sep 15, 2011, 7:59 pm
#121
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Look at the IRS for a long history of how this plays out. The TSA seems to be following the same playbook.
Bruce
Sep 16, 2011, 7:02 am
#122
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY, US
Programs: QF Plat - OW EMD | DL Gold / Starwood Gold
Posts: 6,106
Will be interesting to see if the ITS (intent to sue) letter results in an actual action being filed.
Sep 21, 2011, 1:12 pm
#123
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
Sometimes the government and the court reach agreements that keep the information from public disclosure. I am not certain that a civil court can compel something classified as SSI or higher, be released in open court. Again, technical scenario that I am certain that I am not qualified to be an authority on.
Sep 21, 2011, 1:42 pm
#124
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Courts tend to be sympathetic to government claims of burden or secrecy. That doesn't mean, however, that judges will simply acquiesce in every such claim. Someday, a court is going to issue mandamus directed to someone at TSA and send the marshals out to enforce it.
Again, technical scenario that I am certain that I am not qualified to be an authority on.
Sep 21, 2011, 1:51 pm
#125
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,051
How is it possible to "defame" a government agency? I thought the First Amendment pretty much blocked such a thing. I mean, the press can say what it wants. And the reasoning for that is the need for free flow of ideas. It would amaze me if somehow there was a curb on the right of individuals to complain about government behavior.
Sep 21, 2011, 2:00 pm
#126
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
It absolutely can. First of all SSI is an internal policy unrelated to any of the various federal secrets acts which reach everyone in the country, as opposed to SSI, which is a constraint only on TSA personnel. Second, courts have a vehicle called a "writ of mandate," or, sometimes, just a, "mandamus," which is an order specifically directed to a government actor requiring either that the actor do something or refrain from doing something. Ignoring a mandamus is punishable as contempt of court and can result in the jailing of the specific government actor who has ignored the mandamus.
Courts tend to be sympathetic to government claims of burden or secrecy. That doesn't mean, however, that judges will simply acquiesce in every such claim. Someday, a court is going to issue mandamus directed to someone at TSA and send the marshals out to enforce it.
I'm not an authority, either, but I'm fairly certain I'm reasonably correct on these points.
Courts tend to be sympathetic to government claims of burden or secrecy. That doesn't mean, however, that judges will simply acquiesce in every such claim. Someday, a court is going to issue mandamus directed to someone at TSA and send the marshals out to enforce it.
I'm not an authority, either, but I'm fairly certain I'm reasonably correct on these points.
Sep 21, 2011, 4:25 pm
#129
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
It absolutely can. First of all SSI is an internal policy unrelated to any of the various federal secrets acts which reach everyone in the country, as opposed to SSI, which is a constraint only on TSA personnel. Second, courts have a vehicle called a "writ of mandate," or, sometimes, just a, "mandamus," which is an order specifically directed to a government actor requiring either that the actor do something or refrain from doing something. Ignoring a mandamus is punishable as contempt of court and can result in the jailing of the specific government actor who has ignored the mandamus.
Courts tend to be sympathetic to government claims of burden or secrecy. That doesn't mean, however, that judges will simply acquiesce in every such claim. Someday, a court is going to issue mandamus directed to someone at TSA and send the marshals out to enforce it.
I'm not an authority, either, but I'm fairly certain I'm reasonably correct on these points.
Courts tend to be sympathetic to government claims of burden or secrecy. That doesn't mean, however, that judges will simply acquiesce in every such claim. Someday, a court is going to issue mandamus directed to someone at TSA and send the marshals out to enforce it.
I'm not an authority, either, but I'm fairly certain I'm reasonably correct on these points.
SSI was used by the FAA before TSA ever came into being, and it appears that only TSA, the FAA and in some cases the DOT use it at this point (I could be wrong, others may use it as well, but to the best of my knowledge, those are the only ones currently using it).
How is it possible to "defame" a government agency? I thought the First Amendment pretty much blocked such a thing. I mean, the press can say what it wants. And the reasoning for that is the need for free flow of ideas. It would amaze me if somehow there was a curb on the right of individuals to complain about government behavior.
As far as voicing opinions about the actions or government policies and such, that would be a different story, but this appears to be a direct accusation, which if unfounded may be considered libelous.
Sep 21, 2011, 5:25 pm
#130
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
It absolutely can. First of all SSI is an internal policy unrelated to any of the various federal secrets acts which reach everyone in the country, as opposed to SSI, which is a constraint only on TSA personnel. Second, courts have a vehicle called a "writ of mandate," or, sometimes, just a, "mandamus," which is an order specifically directed to a government actor requiring either that the actor do something or refrain from doing something. Ignoring a mandamus is punishable as contempt of court and can result in the jailing of the specific government actor who has ignored the mandamus.
Courts tend to be sympathetic to government claims of burden or secrecy. That doesn't mean, however, that judges will simply acquiesce in every such claim. Someday, a court is going to issue mandamus directed to someone at TSA and send the marshals out to enforce it.
Courts tend to be sympathetic to government claims of burden or secrecy. That doesn't mean, however, that judges will simply acquiesce in every such claim. Someday, a court is going to issue mandamus directed to someone at TSA and send the marshals out to enforce it.
Ditto.
Sep 22, 2011, 6:45 am
#131
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,051
Yes and no, this (based on the printed stories I have found) was a direct accusation by one person to another. The TSO was evidently accused of "rape" (by Ms. Alkons own admission), and if they feel that was libelous, they are free to file the claim as any other person is.
As far as voicing opinions about the actions or government policies and such, that would be a different story, but this appears to be a direct accusation, which if unfounded may be considered libelous.
As far as voicing opinions about the actions or government policies and such, that would be a different story, but this appears to be a direct accusation, which if unfounded may be considered libelous.
Sep 30, 2011, 5:35 pm
#132
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
Truth is anyone can say "I'll sue you for defamation". Part of free speech. Bringing the lawsuit, keeping it from being thrown out, that's a different matter. People love to say "I'm gonna sue", even when caught doing something wrong. Sometimes it does serve to intimidate. Remember when beef growers threatened Oprah. There was a joke, given the ability of Oprah to marshal a legal team like no one before. But, again, it was an attempt to use civil action to suppress free speech. So, yeh, I can totally see some TSO blurting out that. Winning a court case? TOTALLY different matter!