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
Oct 2, 2006, 6:15 pm
#1561
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by breny
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.
"Public forum" is a publicly-accessible location that has, traditionally, been regarded as a venue for political expression, e.g. parks, street corners, bandshells, etc. "Quasi public forum" is a publicly-accessible location that, while not primarily intended as a venue for political expression, nonetheless serves that function. Airports are not public fora. They are quasi-public fora. The only difference with respect to limitations on speech in a quasi-public fora is that it is permissible to limit, without regard to content, speech that is incompatible with the purpose of the quasi-public forum.
Commercial speech, which includes solicitation, while protected by the First Amendment, is afforded a lower quantum of protection than pure political (also called "core value" speech).
Accordingly, restrictions on soliciting in airports, which entails commercial speech in a quasi-public forum, is subject to less than strict scrutiny.
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.
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."
Oct 2, 2006, 6:20 pm
#1562
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
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.
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.
Do you REALLY think that a TSAer, whether it's a front-liner or a supervisor, is going to sit/stand there and argue with ANY passenger for 25 minutes?
It's hard for me to believe that anyone can be argumentative for 25 minutes when they are described as being "non-combative" by a cop.
Oct 2, 2006, 6:21 pm
#1563
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW Fla. - VPS, PNS
Programs: DL, NW, HH
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by PTravel
I appreciate that you took the time to read it, so I'll explain it.
Oct 2, 2006, 6:26 pm
#1564
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by LessO2
Let's take a step back here.
Do you REALLY think that a TSAer, whether it's a front-liner or a supervisor, is going to sit/stand there and argue with ANY passenger for 25 minutes?
It's hard for me to believe that anyone can be argumentative for 25 minutes when they are described as being "non-combative" by a cop.
Do you REALLY think that a TSAer, whether it's a front-liner or a supervisor, is going to sit/stand there and argue with ANY passenger for 25 minutes?
It's hard for me to believe that anyone can be argumentative for 25 minutes when they are described as being "non-combative" by a cop.
Oct 2, 2006, 6:34 pm
#1565
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
Again, please look up the definition of arguing. I've said my piece, you've said yours, there's no point in debating semantics here.
On that note, go ahead and fire back at me. You can have the last word.
Oct 2, 2006, 6:42 pm
#1566
Join Date: Jul 2004
Programs: NW Gold, '06. Good times.
Posts: 7,363
Originally Posted by PTravel
University of Randy. I like it!
Oct 2, 2006, 6:47 pm
#1567
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by LessO2
Judging by your post history, it looks like you'd like to be combative here.
On that note, go ahead and fire back at me. You can have the last word.
On that note, go ahead and fire back at me. You can have the last word.
Oct 2, 2006, 7:44 pm
#1568
In memoriam
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Near Jacksonville FL
Posts: 3,987
Originally Posted by breny
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."
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."
Oct 2, 2006, 7:55 pm
#1569
In memoriam
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Near Jacksonville FL
Posts: 3,987
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
Did you miss the related case? The Court held invalid the airport authority's ban on literature distribution in airport terminals.
And I don't care what you do. It's your time - and your money - and my only obligation as a member of the bar is to tell you and other people who are reading this thread that your position may be legally wrong. It is up to individuals who are thinking of doing what you did - or similar things - to consider this possibility - i.e., that they may wind up in a lot of hot water - before they act. And if they are really serious - i.e., that writing something on a plastic bag is more important than catching a flight - or avoiding who knows what - then I suggest they retain counsel of their choice and get expert advice before acting.
Things like airport security - individuals being arrested - and the like - are serious business. It is easy to jump up and down and rant and rave when - basically - the OP suffered no adverse consequences as a result of what you did. He didn't even miss his plane. Robyn
Oct 2, 2006, 7:56 pm
#1570
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by robyng
That's from a concurring opinion written only by one Justice. No one else joined in. Not a majority opinion. Interesting - but not precedent. Robyn
And literature distribution has more similarity to this situation than your "solicitation" matter.Lawyers get paid for doing complete work, they get terminated for ignoring a directly related matter (as you had) and/or they lose the case for their clients.
Last edited by GUWonder; Oct 2, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Oct 2, 2006, 8:02 pm
#1571
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by robyng
I'm familiar with both opinions.
And I don't care what you do. It's your time - and your money - and my only obligation as a member of the bar is to tell you and other people who are reading this thread that your position may be legally wrong. It is up to individuals who are thinking of doing what you did - or similar things - to consider this possibility - i.e., that they may wind up in a lot of hot water - before they act. And if they are really serious - i.e., that writing something on a plastic bag is more important than catching a flight - or avoiding who knows what - then I suggest they retain counsel of their choice and get expert advice before acting.
And I don't care what you do. It's your time - and your money - and my only obligation as a member of the bar is to tell you and other people who are reading this thread that your position may be legally wrong. It is up to individuals who are thinking of doing what you did - or similar things - to consider this possibility - i.e., that they may wind up in a lot of hot water - before they act. And if they are really serious - i.e., that writing something on a plastic bag is more important than catching a flight - or avoiding who knows what - then I suggest they retain counsel of their choice and get expert advice before acting.
It's clear that the position you advocate mirrors the "legal position" you present.
It's certainly incomplete.
Originally Posted by robyng
Things like airport security - individuals being arrested - and the like - are serious business. It is easy to jump up and down and rant and rave when - basically - the OP suffered no adverse consequences as a result of what you did. He didn't even miss his plane. Robyn
And the "adverse consequence" was time that cannot be recovered and being sent through a government fishing expedition's net. And that's the very beginning of the "adverse consequences" that we know about so far.
Oct 2, 2006, 8:04 pm
#1572
In memoriam
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Near Jacksonville FL
Posts: 3,987
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Did you forget the related case? The Court held invalid the airport authority's ban on literature distribution in airport terminals. And literature distribution has more similarity to this situation than your "solicitation" matter.
Lawyers get paid for doing complete work, they get terminated for ignoring a directly related matter (as you have) and/or lose the case for their clients.
And literature distribution has more similarity to this situation than your "solicitation" matter.Lawyers get paid for doing complete work, they get terminated for ignoring a directly related matter (as you have) and/or lose the case for their clients.
And the next time I see a hare krishna at the gate - inside security - instead of in a little box near the airport entrance - I'll agree that the related case has some bearing on this issue (until it is overruled - which is how I think the current court would rule).
By the way - what happened to the hare krishnas? Haven't seen them anywhere in *any* part of an airport in years. Or any similar group for that matter. Could be that post 9/11 rules did away with them. Robyn
Oct 2, 2006, 8:06 pm
#1573
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by robyng
I daresay no lawyer ever got fired for keeping a client out of jail.
Originally Posted by robyng
And the next time I see a hare krishna at the gate - inside security - instead of in a little box near the airport entrance - I'll agree that the related case has some bearing on this issue (until it is overruled - which is how I think the current court would rule).
By the way - what happened to the hare krishnas? Haven't seen them anywhere in *any* part of an airport in years. Or any similar group for that matter. Could be that post 9/11 rules did away with them. Robyn
By the way - what happened to the hare krishnas? Haven't seen them anywhere in *any* part of an airport in years. Or any similar group for that matter. Could be that post 9/11 rules did away with them. Robyn
Regarding your claim: "Could be that post 9/11 rules did away with them." It could NOT be that post-9/11 rules did away with them.
If that's your desire, you're free to lobby for further restrictions on the First Amendment. Good luck. 
Last edited by GUWonder; Oct 2, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Oct 2, 2006, 8:11 pm
#1574
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,062
Originally Posted by GUWonder
I see them at ORD rather often, including a few days back. Handing out books.
Oct 2, 2006, 8:13 pm
#1575
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by cme2c
So that's what keeps happening to the ORD AC book share, they keep giving em out to strangers.