Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

I was detained at the TSA checkpoint for about 25 minutes today

View Poll Results: Do you agree or disagree with the action undertaken by MKEbound?
Agree
766
75.92%
Disagree
144
14.27%
Neither agree nor disagree
75
7.43%
Not sure
24
2.38%
Voters: 1009. You may not vote on this poll

I was detained at the TSA checkpoint for about 25 minutes today

Old Oct 2, 2006, 5:22 pm
  #1546  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
No, it's not Orwellian. Do you even know what Orwellian pertains to? Or are you just using something you heard once.

Arguing with TSO's for 25 minutes is not Orwellien. Being arrested for that is.
Just because you disagree with me, you want to attack my knowledge huh? Tells me something about you.

You might want to re-read the OP. There was no 25 minute argument with the TSA folks.

You might even be enlightened to see the cop described the OP as "non-combative."

Check your facts, debates are conducted more intelligent when based on them.
LessO2 is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 5:25 pm
  #1547  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 40
[QUOTE=LessO2]Just because you disagree with me, you want to attack my knowledge huh? Tells me something about you.



Oh my goodness...this argument sounds familiar.
2smrt4u is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
  #1548  
In memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Near Jacksonville FL
Posts: 3,987
I have a busy week this week. Not a lot of time to write messages. But I did do a little research - and this is the most recent case I found about one's "rights" in an airport. Perhaps there is a more recent Supreme Court case - and if anyone has it - I would appreciate a link. If anything - I think I was too liberal in describing one's constitutional "rights" in an airport. And I am sure that the current Supreme Court - if asked to decide a case - would be more conservative than the court in this case.

To those inclined to "protest" - I suggest doing some research or - more to the point - retaining a lawyer and getting a legal opinion before you do something and wind up being detailed or arrested. I can't say it would be an open and shut case against you - only that you may be more at risk than you think. I can also say that it is a big pain being arrested - even if years and dollars down the road - some court winds up saying you were right. Of course - it's a lot worse if you were wrong. This isn't a game - so act accordingly. Robyn
robyng is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 5:43 pm
  #1549  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
Oh please don't give me the "I was questioned so i must have been penalized" argument. Pure example of the pussification of America. Hassles are not penalties no matter how you spin it.
Hassles of the sort that the OP went to were a penalty, a penalty imposed for possessing writing that bothered government agents. No matter how you'd like it spun, only the unreasonable would assert that the additional scrutiny was not due to the constitutionally-protected words on the bag.

The real "pussification" of America is exhibited by those who don't defend the OP's rights under the First Amendment in this situation and those who believe that constitutionally-protected forms of political expression should "merit" additional government oversight.

Hassling people -- and being subject to a government fishing expedition by way of an unusual NCIC check is a hassle, a penalty -- for having dared to write down "Kip Hawley is an idiot" is idiotic. The TSA are not to be the political thought police.

Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
I respect your opinion but carefull not to "chicken little" everything.
The Communists used to say words akin to those during the Kruschev years. It's called damning by feigned or faint praise, right?
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 5:46 pm
  #1550  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by LessO2
Just because you disagree with me, you want to attack my knowledge huh? Tells me something about you.

You might want to re-read the OP. There was no 25 minute argument with the TSA folks.

You might even be enlightened to see the cop described the OP as "non-combative."

Check your facts, debates are conducted more intelligent when based on them.
I'm not attacking your knowledge, i was only making the point that you had exaggerated the definition of the word "orwellian".

And, the OP WAS arguing with the TSO's. I ask you to re-look up the word "arguing" and look at it's definitions as a transitive verb.
Travellin' Fool is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 5:47 pm
  #1551  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by robyng
I have a busy week this week. Not a lot of time to write messages. But I did do a little research - and this is the most recent case I found about one's "rights" in an airport. Perhaps there is a more recent Supreme Court case - and if anyone has it - I would appreciate a link. If anything - I think I was too liberal in describing one's constitutional "rights" in an airport. And I am sure that the current Supreme Court - if asked to decide a case - would be more conservative than the court in this case.

To those inclined to "protest" - I suggest doing some research or - more to the point - retaining a lawyer and getting a legal opinion before you do something and wind up being detailed or arrested. I can't say it would be an open and shut case against you - only that you may be more at risk than you think. I can also say that it is a big pain being arrested - even if years and dollars down the road - some court winds up saying you were right. Of course - it's a lot worse if you were wrong. This isn't a game - so act accordingly. Robyn
Did you miss the fact that the OP was not engaged in solicitation? Expressing a political opinion in an unobtrusive way, by way of possession of a plastic bag calling some public official an idiot is not akin to the example you would try to draw into this matter.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 5:50 pm
  #1552  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
I'm not attacking your knowledge, i was only making the point that you had exaggerated the definition of the word "orwellian".

And, the OP WAS arguing with the TSO's. I ask you to re-look up the word "arguing" and look at it's definitions as a transitive verb.
If you want to be technical, yes, he was arguing.

However, it wasn't heated (at least in his responses) as you seem to be implying.
Superguy is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 5:50 pm
  #1553  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
I'm not attacking your knowledge, i was only making the point that you had exaggerated the definition of the word "orwellian".

And, the OP WAS arguing with the TSO's. I ask you to re-look up the word "arguing" and look at it's definitions as a transitive verb.
Talk about spin. You'd like the word "argue" used in order to benefit from the negative connotations affiliated with such. It's the same reason that the TSA apologists ascribe the word "combative". Take out the adjectives and negative connotations, and what we have is someone being subjected to additional scrutiny on the basis of possession of constitutionally-protected writings at an airport security checkpoint.

If you want screening at airports to pick on people with unpopular constitutionally-protected political opinion, you'll have to either destroy the Constitution or amend it. Good luck.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 5:51 pm
  #1554  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW Fla. - VPS, PNS
Programs: DL, NW, HH
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by robyng
I have a busy week this week. Not a lot of time to write messages. But I did do a little research - and this is the most recent case I found about one's "rights" in an airport. Perhaps there is a more recent Supreme Court case - and if anyone has it - I would appreciate a link. If anything - I think I was too liberal in describing one's constitutional "rights" in an airport. And I am sure that the current Supreme Court - if asked to decide a case - would be more conservative than the court in this case.

To those inclined to "protest" - I suggest doing some research or - more to the point - retaining a lawyer and getting a legal opinion before you do something and wind up being detailed or arrested. I can't say it would be an open and shut case against you - only that you may be more at risk than you think. I can also say that it is a big pain being arrested - even if years and dollars down the road - some court winds up saying you were right. Of course - it's a lot worse if you were wrong. This isn't a game - so act accordingly. Robyn
I don't believe this applies to this debate since the activity in question was solicitation of donations and not writing on a bag. However, I am not a lawyer.

I did take the time to read Justice O'Connor's opinion and I found this excerpt especially interesting (bolding mine):

For these reasons, the Port Authority's restrictions on solicitation and leafletting within the airport terminals do not qualify for the strict scrutiny that applies to restriction of speech in public fora. That airports are not public fora, however, does not mean that the government can restrict speech in whatever way it likes.

The Government, even when acting in its proprietary capacity, does not enjoy absolute freedom from First Amendment constraints.


Kokinda, supra, at 725 (plurality opinion). For example, in Board of Airport Commrs. of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569 (1987), we unanimously struck down a regulation that prohibited "all First Amendment activities" in the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) without even reaching the question whether airports were public fora. Id. at 574-575. We found it

obvious that such a ban cannot be justified even if LAX were a nonpublic forum, because no conceivable governmental interest would justify such an absolute prohibition of speech.


Id. at 575. Moreover, we have consistently stated that restrictions on speech in nonpublic fora are valid only if they are "reasonable" and "not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view." Perry, 460 U.S. at 46; see also Kokinda, supra, 497 U.S. at 731; Cornelius, supra, 473 U.S. at 800; Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298, 303 (1974). The determination that airports are not public fora thus only begins our inquiry.

The reasonableness of the Government's restriction [on speech in a nonpublic forum] must be assessed in light of the purpose of the forum and all the surrounding circumstances.

Cornelius, supra, 473 U.S. at 809.

"[C]onsideration of a forum's special attributes is relevant to the constitutionality of a regulation, since the significance of the governmental interest must be assessed in light of the characteristic nature and function of the particular forum involved."
breny is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 5:52 pm
  #1555  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by Superguy
If you want to be technical, yes, he was arguing.

However, it wasn't heated (at least in his responses) as you seem to be implying.
[SIGH]All this to just say that what happened wasn't Orwellian...
Travellin' Fool is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 5:55 pm
  #1556  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by robyng
To those inclined to "protest" - I suggest doing some research or - more to the point - retaining a lawyer and getting a legal opinion before you do something and wind up being detailed or arrested. I can't say it would be an open and shut case against you - only that you may be more at risk than you think. I can also say that it is a big pain being arrested - even if years and dollars down the road - some court winds up saying you were right. Of course - it's a lot worse if you were wrong. This isn't a game - so act accordingly. Robyn
Your protests against the exercise of First Amendment rights will not dissuade me from exercising my constitutionally-protected right to write down "Kip Hawley is an idiot". Your scare tactics will not dissuade me either. If the government finds the time to detain and arrest people for having a plastic bag that says "Kip Hawley is an idiot", the government has misplaced priorities. Oh, wait, that's clear already.

Did you miss the related case? The Court held invalid the airport authority's ban on literature distribution in airport terminals.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 5:56 pm
  #1557  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Talk about spin. You'd like the word "argue" used in order to benefit from the negative connotations affiliated with such.
I can't quite figure out where you got that impression. Would you rather I used the words "sitting with". It actually adds to my argument. I'll rephrase...

"Sitting with TSO's for twenty five minutes is not Orwellian, being arrested is."

Happier?
Travellin' Fool is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 6:02 pm
  #1558  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
I can't quite figure out where you got that impression. Would you rather I used the words "sitting with". It actually adds to my argument. I'll rephrase...

"Sitting with TSO's for twenty five minutes is not Orwellian, being arrested is."

Happier?
Being compelled to "sit" for 25 minutes with someone you would not be dealing with in the absence of intimidation or explicit coercion is Orwellian. It's also Orwellian to be subject to fishing expeditions, by way of the NCIC check, when there was no basis for "detention" under Wiscosin AND Federal rulings.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 6:03 pm
  #1559  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
[SIGH]All this to just say that what happened wasn't Orwellian...


You're the one that brought up "argue."
Superguy is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 6:11 pm
  #1560  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Under an ORD approach path
Programs: DL PM, MM. Coffee isn't a drug, it's a vitamin.
Posts: 12,935
Originally Posted by breny
For these reasons, the Port Authority's restrictions on solicitation and leafletting within the airport terminals do not qualify for the strict scrutiny that applies to restriction of speech in public fora. That airports are not public fora, however, does not mean that the government can restrict speech in whatever way it likes.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Did you miss the related case? The Court held invalid the airport authority's ban on literature distribution in airport terminals.
Interesting. Unlike robyng, IANAL, but I think that it not an effective legal strategy to employ citations which directly negate your argument.

I guess I won't keep your business card in my roladex.
Gargoyle is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.