I wonder what they'd do if you showed up to the airport in nothing but shoes and an overcoat (both of which you're required to remove before going through the gauntlet).
Unless interested in checking out general passengers' "junk" like the TSA does, you hope they are PreCheck LLL passengers.
__________________
Like TSA, DL SkyMiles management treats airline customers as if they are the enemy or sheep to be fleeced and it shows.
Programs: Amtrak S+, UA 1K, AA PLT, SY, VX, HHonors Diamond, SPG Gold, Colbert Platinum, Walk Score 95
Posts: 3,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by N830MH
Shame on him!!
Actually, shame is the exact problem here. As Americans, we're shamed into hating our bodies, shamed into unfailingly revering authority figures, and shamed into mindless compliance with stupid laws or regulations that have nothing to do with public safety.
Stripping naked at a TSA checkpoint is the perfect protest against all of that and only carries TSA's own procedures to their logical conclusion. More power to him and everyone else who expresses disgust at the Talibanization of our country.
__________________ Modern Trains Now! | My FM | TSA Pre✓: 33/33 | 2013 UA Domestic Upgrades: 23/32; 2012: 48/53; 2011: 36/39; 2010: 67/72
Actually, shame is the exact problem here. As Americans, we're shamed into hating our bodies, shamed into unfailingly revering authority figures, and shamed into mindless compliance with stupid laws or regulations that have nothing to do with public safety.
Stripping naked at a TSA checkpoint is the perfect protest against all of that and only carries TSA's own procedures to their logical conclusion. More power to him and everyone else who expresses disgust at the Talibanization of our country.
This may be a larger issue, but I think you've hit on something more complex: when those values became cultural institutions of sorts (think pre-1960) only those who were really obese were "shamed" into hating their bodies (nobody went to a gym; everyone was flabby after 30), we had far more authority figures worthy of that kind of respect and we became comfortable following laws and regulations since they were far less invasive/less about @$$-covering.
While I'm sure much of it is an exaggeration/outright fiction try watching the film "J. Edgar" and you can see how much of that began to change (or at least imagine how that happened).
In a state where public nudity is constitutionally protected, and airports may be privately owned but public access (as in a mall) is assured, what's their beef? I know - the ol' "disruption" clause.
Public nudity is not "constitionally protected" in Oregon: it just isn't against the law by itself. ORS 163.465: "A person commits the crime of public indecency if while in, or in view of, a public place the person performs: ... (c) An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person."
So intent of sexual arousal is required. Seems kind of hard to show in this case.
Last edited by RichardKenner; Apr 18, 12 at 5:05 pm..
Public nudity is not "constitionally protected" in Oregon: it just isn't against the law by itself. ORS 163.465: "A person commits the crime of public indecency if while in, or in view of, a public place the person performs: ... (c) An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person."
So intent of sexual arousal is required. Seems kind of hard to show in this case.
If it was hard to show isn't that prima facie evidence?
Actually, shame is the exact problem here. As Americans, we're shamed into hating our bodies, shamed into unfailingly revering authority figures, and shamed into mindless compliance with stupid laws or regulations that have nothing to do with public safety.
Stripping naked at a TSA checkpoint is the perfect protest against all of that and only carries TSA's own procedures to their logical conclusion. More power to him and everyone else who expresses disgust at the Talibanization of our country.
If the TSA Haters are going to get any traction with general public, you guys need to teach Grizzly Adams how to use twitter and make Bar Rafaeli your new strip search poster child.
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 11,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by YEG Guy
If the TSA Haters are going to get any traction with general public, you guys need to teach Grizzly Adams how to use twitter and make Bar Rafaeli your new strip search poster child.
Not only did you get this comment in before I did but you were a lot funnier than I was going to be.
Mike
__________________
The Boston Do, July 22. Now, with more DOoey goodness! Read about it here.
Clay Pratt: "I am amazed he was arrested in a city they allows a mass public naked bike ride right through it's most congested and populated business districts every year. Portland has no laws against public nudity. They do have laws regarding lewd behavior while nude, though they would not apply to this mans behaviors."
Oh well, what do constitutionally protected rights matter anyways?
I am reminded of this bit of poetry somehow:
Does It Matter?
Siegfried Sassoon
Does it matter?—losing your leg? …
For people will always be kind,
And you need not show that you mind
When the others come in after hunting
To gobble their muffins and eggs.
Does it matter?—losing your sight? …
There’s such splendid work for the blind;
And people will always be kind,
As you sit on the terrace remembering
And turning your face to the light.
Do they matter?—those dreams from the pit? …
You can drink and forget and be glad,
And people won’t say that you’re mad;
For they’ll know that you’ve fought for your country,
And no one will worry a bit.
The constitutionally-protected right in question here will be one's right to protest and whether he went beyond what is constitutionally-protected "speech" by stripping naked in the airport. Few (if any) jurisdictions will grant a jury trial for a violation (or whatever they specifically call it there). I have to say, I found the article more than a little biased. It states that there are three constitutional rights that aren't granted those charged with a violation but it fails to mention the reason for this: a violation has substantially lesser penalties attached (probably no chance of jail time, nor large fines vs a misdemeanor which can carry up to a year in jail). The author makes it sound as though the DA decided to prosecute this as a violation in an effort to screw him out of a jury trial, rather than to ensure this guys doesn't end up with a misdemeanor conviction on his record (or something in the middle).
