The responses on PV have grown to 212. Interesting is that I have read several with words that Bob would never allow the "regulars" to post, words like "s**t", "w*****g".
There could be an upside to the TSA's panic in contacting everyone who posted on Twitter and then posted the thread in question:
Perhaps it will draw more readers to PV who will then see for themselves how totally non-responsive the blog and TSA are to the concerns of the flying public.
I have a feeling Blogger Bob is not manning the approve button on this one.
I have a feeling Blogger Bob is not manning the approve button on this one.
I suspect that you are correct. TSA really wants to discredit Mom. However, I wonder if perhaps they have gone too far and made a legal misstep. Could they be looking at a harassment suit?
I am sorry but there are just too many discrepancies in Nic's story to make this story credible.
First her timeline essentially starts with things going bad at the metal detector, then security holding booth, then some cell phone calls, then the baby at the pat down.
Well first: Things already look bad for this lady when she is so entitled that she can't believe they won't let her just drop the babies pacifier on the belt which she "knows" to be setting off the metal detector. Annoying yes, but the way she states this, it shows she is already of delicate mental condition
Then the "plastic box" with "6 holes" in it... she describes this is as if it's some kind of torture room. It's not a box, it has no ceiling and the back end is wide open, there isn't even a door on that end. The walls are clear plastic and only go up to about head level. It's no first class lounge, but as a secure holding booth for under 2 minutes... this is not at all unreaslable and again, the way she describes it shows her mental status.
TSA has a lot of bases to cover, the fact that people will not leave their post to assist you to jump ahead is unpleasant but not at all unreasonable. Again, this lady is too entitled to be taken seriously.
Then there is the whole cell phone, baby taking and tearful joining... this is totally disputed by the video.
First off the baby is never out of reasonable distance from her... maybe out of site as in she is facing the other direction, but nothing near "TSA TOOK MY BABY".
The timeline of her story says that when her baby was returned to her, she was so short on time she just grabbed her stuff and left. This couldn't happen from the video... even if they took her son during the cut out part between shots, she was given her son back before her pat down started so her story totally falls apart as she did not then rush off to her flight. There is no running to grab a child from a TSA officer and the timestamps show that there was barely enough time to get from the booth to the chair area in the missing portion so... again... totally falls apart.
No cell phone call is seen and again, story falls apart as she said she grabbed her cell phone and made the calls while in the seating area. First off, TSA would not allow you to grab your cell phone and make one let alone two calls in the security area. Two it obviously didn't happen via the video.
I do believe the TSA was terse with her and probably more so than with normal people as from the video it appears she is visibly a trouble passenger. We would all like to think that TSA can remain calm and collected and not escalate the situation but they are humans and deal with people all day and thus blame them when they don't, but they probably rightly realized what they were dealing with in this lady from the start and in situations like this, it does not servet he greater good to give in to the demands of an obviously exasperated and entitled person.
Face it, we have all been there before... at work and in normal life. A woman starts ranting and going off about little things as if they are the end of the world and acting very entitled and righteous how would you act? I know how I would act because I have been there before. You are not dealing with a rational, normal person, you let go of giving the benefit of the doubt and extra courtesy, you just boil down to what it takes to get the job done.
That's all just on a logical standpoint (watch the video, match it up to her story and see where they discrepencies are) but when you look at her blog and pictures and actions, pair that with her "emergency zanax" you get a person who is very believably making something like this up either on purpose or via an anxiety induced hallucination.
Add to that her twitters about selling this story to publishers for money... well she looses all credability with me.
I am sorry but I think this lady is worse than balloon boys family. Sure they cost us time and money and resources, but just like kidnapping is worse than any monitary loss, a false accusation of such is equally but oppositely as bad.
TSA really wants to discredit Mom. However, I wonder if perhaps they have gone too far and made a legal misstep. Could they be looking at a harassment suit?
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.
Having said that ... I'm not sure that I see a basis for a harassment suit. The only thing Bob says about Nic is:
Quote:
After watching the video footage, you'll see the video clearly shows that this invididual was never separated from her baby by TSA. You'll also see that a lot of the other claims are also unfounded.
That's hardly a basis for a harassment suit ... especially since Nic went public initially with her posting on her own blog.
Yes, much of the ensuing commentary against her is harsh. But none of it comes from identifiable TSA employees, speaking on behalf of the TSA. TSA gets flak for censoring comments on the blog as a violation of people's First Amendment rights (a spurious argument, in my view, but it's out there). So, do you want to sue TSA for censoring too much or too little?
BTW as for how the TSA responded, I actually prefer this to the normal "spokeperson with canned denial" or "just let it blow over" tactics.
Both those only add to the negative view of the TSA and basically something that isn't denied takes on an air of truth. And whenever we see a canned denial or no response, what do the majority of people think? Guilty.
It's important to get this kind of story out there when it's legit, but it's just as important to quash it when it's not. Especially when it's something as significant as kidnapping...
Having said that ... I'm not sure that I see a basis for a harassment suit. The only thing Bob says about Nic is:
That's hardly a basis for a harassment suit ... especially since Nic went public initially with her posting on her own blog.
Yes, much of the ensuing commentary against her is harsh. But none of it comes from identifiable TSA employees, speaking on behalf of the TSA. TSA gets flak for censoring comments on the blog as a violation of people's First Amendment rights (a spurious argument, in my view, but it's out there). So, do you want to sue TSA for censoring too much or too little?
I'm not a lawyer either. HOWEVER, this is a total change of TSA tactics - allegedly sending an e-mail to every person who responded via Twitter. I'm certain a very creative attorney could have a hay day with TSA's behavior in this case vs. others.
I'm not a lawyer either. HOWEVER, this is a total change of TSA tactics - allegedly sending an e-mail to every person who responded via Twitter. I'm certain a very creative attorney could have a hay day with TSA's behavior in this case vs. others.
But how is it harassment when (a) you're communicating facts, with exceedingly little interpretation of those facts, and (b) you're communicating with people who are already interested in the topic, as evidenced by their original Twitter posts?
Sure, someone could try and sue. But my feeble understanding of the law suggests that the plaintiff has a fairly large burden of proof.
Not to mention that TSA could counter-sue for slander, since she appears to have knowingly propagated information she knew to be false. At that point, the lawyers probably get in a room and make the whole thing go away ...
I'm not a lawyer either. HOWEVER, this is a total change of TSA tactics - allegedly sending an e-mail to every person who responded via Twitter. I'm certain a very creative attorney could have a hay day with TSA's behavior in this case vs. others.
I think it would all depend on what the email said. If it was simply a pointer to the blog to show the video, that would not be harassment.
But how is it harassment when (a) you're communicating facts, with exceedingly little interpretation of those facts, and (b) you're communicating with people who are already interested in the topic, as evidenced by their original Twitter posts?
Sure, someone could try and sue. But my feeble understanding of the law suggests that the plaintiff has a fairly large burden of proof.
Not to mention that TSA could counter-sue for slander, since she appears to have knowingly propagated information she knew to be false. At that point, the lawyers probably get in a room and make the whole thing go away ...
Sure. Plenty of examples exist ... like all the lawsuits Proctor & Gamble filed charging Amway with slander over the "P&G is Satanist" rumors.
I've heard and read some pretty vile things about government organizations and don't think that either the libel or slander laws apply to government bodies. It might even extend to people employed in the government. Remember some of the things posted about Kippie?
__________________
I am not a zek being transported to a gulag. I am an American citizen just traveling.
I've heard and read some pretty vile things about government organizations and don't think that either the libel or slander laws apply to government bodies. It might even extend to people employed in the government. Remember some of the things posted about Kippie?
As to whether or not government entities can be charged with slander ... I don't know. Sometimes you can sue the government, sometimes you can't.
But proving defamation (the more general term for slander) in court is exceedingly difficult. You have to show (at a minimum) that the statements are false, and that the defendant knew that the statements were false when making the statements. Opinions don't meet the standard. So while, technically, KHIAI is a statement of fact, I think most people would interpret the statement as an opinion rather than an assertion about KH's intelligence.
Plus, actually filing suit may be counterproductive in such situations ... in that it ends up repeating the allegedly defamatory statement over and over again, giving it more publicity.
So ... the fact that governments don't often sue individuals for defamation doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't.
Someone that carries an "emergency Xanax" in their pocket does not strike me as the most stable. So I question such details as: notifying the TSO in a timely manner (or if at all) that the reason for the WTMD alarm was due to a metal clip; and that the child was “taken”. In fact, I would guess the kid was taken to one of the medal tables towards the back of a check point that are used for bag checks (as it is hard to pat down an infant while holding him). The kid was probably no more than 10 feet away, and minus a few seconds when the TSOs body might have blocked the women’s line-of-sight, I bet the child was fully within visual sight.
Comments like: "My eyes welled up with tears", "My breath was short and my heart was racing", "I began to black out. I knew I was having a full on panic attack. I feared passing out.", and "could not see. I had no peripheral vision" lead me to believe that even if the child was directly in front of her, with no obstruction; the combination of her panicked state and the hustle/bustle of a checkpoint, she would have been incapable of seeing the child.
That all being said. Short of the TSA releasing the security video, we will never know what happened. By the women's own admission, her mental state was severally impaired, and one can't put any value into the accuracy of the story. But on the same token, the TSOs could also have done a lousy job (which would not be unheard of). But again, without any reliable information either way, we can't know what really happened.
Programs: UA 1K (first time - yay!), HH Silver, TSA Disparager Gold, KHIAI Club
Posts: 8,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryMiller
I've heard and read some pretty vile things about government organizations and don't think that either the libel or slander laws apply to government bodies. It might even extend to people employed in the government. Remember some of the things posted about Kippie?
The truth is a valid defense in the case of slander and libel.
For example, it's 100% true that Kip Hawley is an Idiot.
__________________
Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have. -- Gerald Ford
Someone that carries an "emergency Xanax" in their pocket does not strike me as the most stable. So I question such details as: notifying the TSO in a timely manner (or if at all) that the reason for the WTMD alarm was due to a metal clip; and that the child was “taken”. In fact, I would guess the kid was taken to one of the medal tables towards the back of a check point that are used for bag checks (as it is hard to pat down an infant while holding him). The kid was probably no more than 10 feet away, and minus a few seconds when the TSOs body might have blocked the women’s line-of-sight, I bet the child was fully within visual sight.
Comments like: "My eyes welled up with tears", "My breath was short and my heart was racing", "I began to black out. I knew I was having a full on panic attack. I feared passing out.", and "could not see. I had no peripheral vision" lead me to believe that even if the child was directly in front of her, with no obstruction; the combination of her panicked state and the hustle/bustle of a checkpoint, she would have been incapable of seeing the child.
That all being said. Short of the TSA releasing the security video, we will never know what happened. By the women's own admission, her mental state was severally impaired, and one can't put any value into the accuracy of the story. But on the same token, the TSOs could also have done a lousy job (which would not be unheard of). But again, without any reliable information either way, we can't know what really happened.
Heh, so I posted this comment before watching the video on TSA's blog (this is what happens when I don’t read FT for more than 24 hours). And unless the TSA fudged the time codes on the videos, the women's story is far beyond just a difference of opinion, but rather a flat out fabrication. It’s one thing to have a few discrepancies, but there is a hole the size of the Grand Canyon between her version and the video (i.e. the whole child being taken part).
Again, can/has the TSA messed with the time codes and skipped over the incriminating parts? The tin foil hat folks might say yes, but personally, I am going to side with the TSA on this one UNLESS a third-party eye-witness comes forward with a different take on the events. (Sorry guys, the simplest answer is usually the most correct.)
