Originally Posted by barbell

With all due respect, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the American culture, customs, and laws.

There is neither a law, nor a legal precedent, against the OP doing what was described. Period. Nada. End of story. There is, however, a legal precedent that indeed explicitly allows the OP to do exactly what was described. The Constitution, among other things, allows Americans the right to peaceably assemble.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that the OP was indeed trying to provoke a response. The right to peaceably assemble, as guaranteed in the First Ammendment, allows Americans the right, and therefore the responsibility, to express support or opposition to public policy. You can do neither sitting on your keister.

The OP did not interfere with the screening process in any way. The OP did not damage property. The OP did not infringe on the rights of others. The OP did not cause a public disruption of any kind. (disclaimer: two sides to every story, so this information is speculation based on the OP's report of the events in question).

The argument that you present of someone taking pictures of your house is a fundamentally different situation. Your house is your private property, and is again explicitly protected under the laws, customs, and traditions of American law. You therefore have the absolute right to make such a request, and expect it to be fulfilled. The airport, a public space, is another matter entirely.

As to the Rosa Parks analogy, it isn't entirely accurate in this scenario because she actually broke the law. And she is an American Hero for doing so.

Originally Posted by Custardthecat

OK, I understand that your constitutional rights are important to you all.

I am afraid I just don't have the detailed arguments at my fingertips to enagage the minutae of every argument

So lets see. When engaged in everyday activities and interacting with the lawful authorities you are either the compliant sort or the other sort.

There are also those who feel that they need to engage directly where they have no cause to interact at all.

The result can be escalation and yes there are two sides of the resultant fall out. I have painted where I am on this side of the argument. Just because there might be an aspect of law that allows me, apparently, to engage in an activity, I don't expect I would feel the overwhelming desire to engage in it, without good reason especially if I suspected that it might precipitate some unpleasantness. I cannot see what use, myself, any of the photographs were to the OP in a practical sense so I draw the conclusion that something else is behind it. Like I say, I am where I am and some of you are where you are on it.