GeoGirl

Yes, that's abundantly clear.

GG

hoyateach

The OP, near as I can tell, wanted to see what would happen. I'm planning to do the same thing when I fly tomorrow, only my baggie will read, "this is stupid."

I don't want a reaction. I just want to be heard. There's a profound difference. I'm not very active in voicing myself politically but the TSA, more than any other government agency, is prodding me into speaking up. There's only so much I'll take in silence.

And yes, I've written my federal reps.

GUWonder

I am not really questioning your intelligence and education. I'm questioning the lack of critical thinking evident in some of the posts, and I'm questioning a lot of the faulty assumptions built into those very posts.

iluv2fly

You just exercised your right to free speech, as I did in my original post. Isn't this a great country!? ^

hoyateach

LOL. Touche.

2smrt4u

Just a tad out line line, eh??? You assume that I don't know the constitution because I have a different opinion about what took place here. It's only fair that I provide the "fact" that I did very well in that course, through hard work and understanding. To imply that I must have cheated is BS.

GUWonder

I would agree without hesitation, but when someone brings up their grades, "an appeal to authority" of sorts, questions do arise. In any event, this discussion of user names and classes and grades is a side-show, a distraction.

Back to constitutionally-protected words written on bags.

Travellin' Fool

I guess that I just cannot grasp why you would do something to make a statement and in the back of your mind not realize that something could come of it. In other words, when making a statement you need the confirmation that said statement is, in fact, heard by the parties to which it applies. The whole issue of making a statement and not expecting a reaction (even an over the top reaction) seems a bit absurd to me.

PTravel

MKEbound went to the airport intending to express his dissatisfaction with TSA's screening procedures in a completely legal way. His intent was to remain within the law, and not to provoke a response in the TSOs that was outside the law. And, in fact, his actions were within the law. The TSO's and STSO's were not.

It's not? How so? The whole point of the First Amendment is that it extends to unpopular speech -- that's its whole raison d'etre. Though within the ambit of the First Amendment, there is no need for constitutional protection for saying, "Hi, TSO. Good job! Thanks for keeping us safe!" On the other hand, saying, "Hey, TSO guy -- your job is pointless, we're not safe, and TSA exists solely to stage a dog-and-pony show for the ignorant masses," is provocative, unpopular (at least among TSOs) and will cause some kind of reaction. The First Amendment absolutely guarantees MKEbound's right to provoke that reaction, and ensures that reaction will be limited to the TSO thinking, "Hey, this guy's an a$$," and not exercising his limited power over MKEbound in retaliation.

Presumably, the TSO should have sufficiently trained to recognize that "Kip Hawley is an idiot," is not a threat. However, yes, the supervisor of that TSO did have a decision to make. Unfortunately for MKEbound, the TSA and the country, he made the wrong one.

They did far more than give him a second look. And I'd agree that, if TSA was profiling, it would be appropriate to consider all aspects of behavior. However, MKEbound wasn't detained because of his profile, but solely because of what was written on the bag.

Actually, technically, it's not hearsay -- it's an admission by a party and therefore admissible in court. However, as I've said repeatedly, the only version of the story before us is the one provided by MKEbound. It is pointless to speculate as to whether his recital is accurate or not. If accurate, his rights were violated for engaging in lawful, privileged conduct.

What is irresponsible is speculating on MKEbound's veracity. This isn't a court of a law. It's a discussion board about travel. What happened to MKEbound is about travel, and a perfectly valid topic for conversation here.

sonofzeus

If I were OP, the only difference tomorrow would be to have 3 fair witnesses immediately behind me.

2smrt4u

So you'd not be offended if I told you that your faulty assumption that MKEBound's word is the absolute truth is showing your lack of critical thinking. I'm not here to insult anyone why must you all?

hoyateach

(Bolding mine.) I agree. Again, I don't want a reaction, per se, but to not expect one is just naive. I'm doing this not because I'm feeling an adolescent rebellion percolating in my head but because the alternative is to do nothing. And I am just about sick to death of doing nothing.

PTravel

And I'll say to you one more time: MKEbound did break any rule. However, your assertion that someone shouldn't fly if they object to TSA's dog-and-pony show is preposterous. Are you one of those "America -- love it or leave it" types? I don't engage in protests like MKEbound. I do, however, think the rules are stupid and will criticize them in my own way. I certainly will not refrain from flying.

I actually agree with you when it comes to flyers who deliberately take banned items in their carryon, or engage in other disruptive conduct. MKEbound's protest, however, was not disruptive and, were TSA acting within the law, wouldn't have occassioned any delay whatsoever.

2smrt4u

Appeal to authority???? Please.

You all are the ones implying that you are smarter(thus have more authority to make any statement here) than I because you feel I don't understand the consitution. It's only fair for me to state that in fact I have just as much of an understanding of it as all of you. Hardly an appeal.

GUWonder

People mutter things under their breath rather often, and those mutterings have included making a statement and making it that way so as not to expect an over-the-top reaction. This may be absurd to you, but it's still protected speech under the Constitution; and the government should not be "rewarding" & "punishing" people at airports on the basis of which constitutionally-protected speech/writings they have made.