Don't forget to let the DA know what you think of their decision to prosecute Andrea
Oct 28, 2012, 4:12 pm
#16
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
While I am not, in any way, condoning the touching of a minor's crotch by anyone other than a medical professional for official medical reasons (IE a gynaecologist) or a parent (in the case of a young child who has not been toilet trained), I seriously question that the term "sexual molestation" is an accurate term as used in this situation. In fact, I find it highly inaccurate, inflammatory and sensational.
The (American) National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect defines the act as "Contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the perpetrator or another person when the perpetrator or another person is in a position of power or control over the victim."
I fail to see ANY evidence that the screener was intending to touch the person for either of those reasons.
Wrong? Probably. Totally ineffectual from a security standpoint? Absolutely! Child Molestation? Without being able to read the mind of the TSA agent, I highly doubt it.
The (American) National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect defines the act as "Contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the perpetrator or another person when the perpetrator or another person is in a position of power or control over the victim."
I fail to see ANY evidence that the screener was intending to touch the person for either of those reasons.
Wrong? Probably. Totally ineffectual from a security standpoint? Absolutely! Child Molestation? Without being able to read the mind of the TSA agent, I highly doubt it.
Unwanted physical contact with people's sexual parts -- clothed or otherwise -- is molestation or assault, sexual molestation or sexual assault at that. Whether such sexual molestation or sexual assault is criminalized or not, the sexual molestation/sexual assault still is what it is: sexual molestation/sexual assault.
Parents in the US can't legally consent to the sexual molestation of a minor child by an adult, TSA-uniformed or not. That's true under the laws of each and every state of the Union. If some consenting adult wants some random strangers to go rub their own crotch or another consenting adult's crotch, that's their own business in many a place (even as something like that has often been grounds for ending up on a sex offenders list). If someone tries to grant consent to another adult to rub the crotch of a minor for reasons that have nothing to do with medical and hygiene issues, better have a lawyer ready.
Last edited by GUWonder; Oct 28, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Oct 29, 2012, 4:40 am
#17
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: MEL, PER, PBO, occasionally ships, oil rigs and other places that no sane human being should ever find themselves
Programs: IHG RA, PC Plat, QF Plat/LTS
Posts: 804
Oct 29, 2012, 4:45 am
#18
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: MEL, PER, PBO, occasionally ships, oil rigs and other places that no sane human being should ever find themselves
Programs: IHG RA, PC Plat, QF Plat/LTS
Posts: 804
If some old, scruffy random homeless man on the street was caught on video running up to and rubbing the crotch area of a 12-year-old girl whose security detail was nearby would you believe that wasn't sexual molestation if the person claimed it was being done to show the futility of the "security" and not for purposes of anyone's sexual gratification? If he claimed he was just curious if the person was really a girl and that is why he did the crotch grab, would you believe that too wasn't sexual molestation?
Unwanted physical contact with people's sexual parts -- clothed or otherwise -- is molestation or assault, sexual molestation or sexual assault at that. Whether such sexual molestation or sexual assault is criminalized or not, the sexual molestation/sexual assault still is what it is: sexual molestation/sexual assault.
Parents in the US can't legally consent to the sexual molestation of a minor child by an adult, TSA-uniformed or not. That's true under the laws of each and every state of the Union. If some consenting adult wants some random strangers to go rub their own crotch or another consenting adult's crotch, that's their own business in many a place (even as something like that has often been grounds for ending up on a sex offenders list). If someone tries to grant consent to another adult to rub the crotch of a minor for reasons that have nothing to do with medical and hygiene issues, better have a lawyer ready.
Unwanted physical contact with people's sexual parts -- clothed or otherwise -- is molestation or assault, sexual molestation or sexual assault at that. Whether such sexual molestation or sexual assault is criminalized or not, the sexual molestation/sexual assault still is what it is: sexual molestation/sexual assault.
Parents in the US can't legally consent to the sexual molestation of a minor child by an adult, TSA-uniformed or not. That's true under the laws of each and every state of the Union. If some consenting adult wants some random strangers to go rub their own crotch or another consenting adult's crotch, that's their own business in many a place (even as something like that has often been grounds for ending up on a sex offenders list). If someone tries to grant consent to another adult to rub the crotch of a minor for reasons that have nothing to do with medical and hygiene issues, better have a lawyer ready.
How you personally define the word is irrelevant. The crime has been LEGALLY defined and that is THE definition.
You ARE right that an adult can't grant permission for their child to be molested but, once again, that's irrelevant. That's not what was happening here.
If you want to fight what's happening, do it. I HIGHLY encourage people to do that, but you need to stick to the facts. Putting up a fantasy argument for a real problem is only going to weaken your argument.
Oct 29, 2012, 7:16 am
#19
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
No, I would NOT believe that those examples are sexual molestation. The crime is clearly defined by the law and if the elemements of the crime are not met that crime has NOT happened. Other crimes may have been (in your examples battery would probably be easy to prove), but not THAT crime.
How you personally define the word is irrelevant. The crime has been LEGALLY defined and that is THE definition.
You ARE right that an adult can't grant permission for their child to be molested but, once again, that's irrelevant. That's not what was happening here.
If you want to fight what's happening, do it. I HIGHLY encourage people to do that, but you need to stick to the facts. Putting up a fantasy argument for a real problem is only going to weaken your argument.
How you personally define the word is irrelevant. The crime has been LEGALLY defined and that is THE definition.
You ARE right that an adult can't grant permission for their child to be molested but, once again, that's irrelevant. That's not what was happening here.
If you want to fight what's happening, do it. I HIGHLY encourage people to do that, but you need to stick to the facts. Putting up a fantasy argument for a real problem is only going to weaken your argument.
Crime is defined under the law, but not all wrongful actions are defined by law or law alone. Proof of that is to be found in the different definitions of various acts which are criminalized in some jurisdictions but may not be criminalized in other jurisdictions (or not criminalized in the same way). Take the matter of adultery. The crime of adultery exists in some jurisdictions, but even in jurisdictions where adultery is not defined as a crime there is still adultery when the act of adultery takes place; and that act of adultery has a definition that may not be restricted to the definition in law or law alone. Just as an act of adultery is still adultery even if it is not always treated as a crime, so is sexual molestation still sexual molestation even if not always treated as a crime.
Oct 29, 2012, 7:52 am
#21
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: MEL, PER, PBO, occasionally ships, oil rigs and other places that no sane human being should ever find themselves
Programs: IHG RA, PC Plat, QF Plat/LTS
Posts: 804
"Green" has been defined even though it's not a crime. If I see something that has been defined as "green" and, through my own determination, I start calling it brown, guess what? It's STILL NOT BROWN.
No sexual intent=no sexual molestation. Period. Why is it so hard to call the act what it is? It's wrong enough on its own without adding false hysteria to it.
Oct 29, 2012, 10:25 am
#22
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
The phrase has been defined. In this case the definition, as determined by the organisation that deals with these acts, is very specific and not congruent with your definition.
"Green" has been defined even though it's not a crime. If I see something that has been defined as "green" and, through my own determination, I start calling it brown, guess what? It's STILL NOT BROWN.
No sexual intent=no sexual molestation. Period. Why is it so hard to call the act what it is? It's wrong enough on its own without adding false hysteria to it.
"Green" has been defined even though it's not a crime. If I see something that has been defined as "green" and, through my own determination, I start calling it brown, guess what? It's STILL NOT BROWN.
No sexual intent=no sexual molestation. Period. Why is it so hard to call the act what it is? It's wrong enough on its own without adding false hysteria to it.
Personally, I consider what TSA does to be sexual assault, and I will never willingly submit to it. However, I acknowledge that it doesn't fit the legal definition of sexual assault if there is no sexual gratification involved on the part of the assaulter, and thus there is no legal basis for criminal charges.
I am somewhat troubled by one question, however - how do we know that a TSO performing a full-body rubdown with genital contact is or is not getting some form of sexual gratification from it? Personally, I don't care - as I said, my own opinion is that it's a sexual assault whether the TSO is getting his rocks off or not - but since the same act may or may not fit the legal definition of sexual assault depending on the gratification angle, then you must admit that at least some of the millions of pat-downs that have been performed over the last two years actually did fit the legal definition of sexual assault, and we just didn't know it, because we can't read the TSO's mind.
Oh, and one more thing - what if the assault brings sexual gratification to an accomplice? Like, the other TSOs looking on while they're being performed? Would those classify as sexual assaults?
Oct 29, 2012, 11:03 am
#23
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: MEL, PER, PBO, occasionally ships, oil rigs and other places that no sane human being should ever find themselves
Programs: IHG RA, PC Plat, QF Plat/LTS
Posts: 804
I think what GUWonder was trying to say it that there is a legal definition of things, and there is a common definition of things. What most reasonable people might define as sexual assault may not meet all of the legal qualifications for a sex crime.
Personally, I consider what TSA does to be sexual assault, and I will never willingly submit to it. However, I acknowledge that it doesn't fit the legal definition of sexual assault if there is no sexual gratification involved on the part of the assaulter, and thus there is no legal basis for criminal charges.
I am somewhat troubled by one question, however - how do we know that a TSO performing a full-body rubdown with genital contact is or is not getting some form of sexual gratification from it? Personally, I don't care - as I said, my own opinion is that it's a sexual assault whether the TSO is getting his rocks off or not - but since the same act may or may not fit the legal definition of sexual assault depending on the gratification angle, then you must admit that at least some of the millions of pat-downs that have been performed over the last two years actually did fit the legal definition of sexual assault, and we just didn't know it, because we can't read the TSO's mind.
Oh, and one more thing - what if the assault brings sexual gratification to an accomplice? Like, the other TSOs looking on while they're being performed? Would those classify as sexual assaults?
Personally, I consider what TSA does to be sexual assault, and I will never willingly submit to it. However, I acknowledge that it doesn't fit the legal definition of sexual assault if there is no sexual gratification involved on the part of the assaulter, and thus there is no legal basis for criminal charges.
I am somewhat troubled by one question, however - how do we know that a TSO performing a full-body rubdown with genital contact is or is not getting some form of sexual gratification from it? Personally, I don't care - as I said, my own opinion is that it's a sexual assault whether the TSO is getting his rocks off or not - but since the same act may or may not fit the legal definition of sexual assault depending on the gratification angle, then you must admit that at least some of the millions of pat-downs that have been performed over the last two years actually did fit the legal definition of sexual assault, and we just didn't know it, because we can't read the TSO's mind.
Oh, and one more thing - what if the assault brings sexual gratification to an accomplice? Like, the other TSOs looking on while they're being performed? Would those classify as sexual assaults?
How do we know that at least a few TSO aren't getting sexual gratification from their groping? Well, we don't but absent of any evidence to suggest otherwise we have to assume that they are not. Just as we assume that, absent of any evidence, people are not committing other crimes.
Regarding other TSOs getting sexual gratification from the act, if the act was being done for that purpose then, yes, that would most certainly be sexual molestation.
Personally, I don't care what term anybody uses. People can pretend they're Martian and call it "Xxdsfdsfsf" for all I care. What I DO care about is presenting a valid, rational argument toward getting rid of or significantly changing the TSA. Being overly emotional, melodramatic, etc is NOT the way to do this. Once people start making things out to be more sensational than they really are they shoot themselves in the foot. If things are really that bad why do they need to be embellished? It leaves people thinking "If you are afraid to tell it as it is it must not be that bad." What the TSA does IS that bad on it's own. We don't need to ruin our own argument by adding to it. What advantage do we have by giving them a good rebutal to an overly sensationalist argument?
In short, if you have a righteous argument you should stick to the facts otherwise you run the risk of invalidating your own point.
Oct 29, 2012, 11:13 am
#24
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
While I agree that the common and legal definitions of words can be different, the (American) National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect has defined the phrase. Not the legal definition (which they also give examples of on their web site) but what would probably called the "common" definition, just as a dictionary defines words.
How do we know that at least a few TSO aren't getting sexual gratification from their groping? Well, we don't but absent of any evidence to suggest otherwise we have to assume that they are not. Just as we assume that, absent of any evidence, people are not committing other crimes.
Regarding other TSOs getting sexual gratification from the act, if the act was being done for that purpose then, yes, that would most certainly be sexual molestation.
Personally, I don't care what term anybody uses. People can pretend they're Martian and call it "Xxdsfdsfsf" for all I care. What I DO care about is presenting a valid, rational argument toward getting rid of or significantly changing the TSA. Being overly emotional, melodramatic, etc is NOT the way to do this. Once people start making things out to be more sensational than they really are they shoot themselves in the foot. If things are really that bad why do they need to be embellished? It leaves people thinking "If you are afraid to tell it as it is it must not be that bad." What the TSA does IS that bad on it's own. We don't need to ruin our own argument by adding to it. What advantage do we have by giving them a good rebutal to an overly sensationalist argument?
In short, if you have a righteous argument you should stick to the facts otherwise you run the risk of invalidating your own point.
How do we know that at least a few TSO aren't getting sexual gratification from their groping? Well, we don't but absent of any evidence to suggest otherwise we have to assume that they are not. Just as we assume that, absent of any evidence, people are not committing other crimes.
Regarding other TSOs getting sexual gratification from the act, if the act was being done for that purpose then, yes, that would most certainly be sexual molestation.
Personally, I don't care what term anybody uses. People can pretend they're Martian and call it "Xxdsfdsfsf" for all I care. What I DO care about is presenting a valid, rational argument toward getting rid of or significantly changing the TSA. Being overly emotional, melodramatic, etc is NOT the way to do this. Once people start making things out to be more sensational than they really are they shoot themselves in the foot. If things are really that bad why do they need to be embellished? It leaves people thinking "If you are afraid to tell it as it is it must not be that bad." What the TSA does IS that bad on it's own. We don't need to ruin our own argument by adding to it. What advantage do we have by giving them a good rebutal to an overly sensationalist argument?
In short, if you have a righteous argument you should stick to the facts otherwise you run the risk of invalidating your own point.
My own personal definition is that if someone touches my sex organs without my permission, I've been sexually assaulted. Whether YOU agree with my definition, or the TSA, NCCAN, NCFMEC, or any other person, organization, or agency agrees with me, is entirely beside the point. I consider it a sexual assault, and I will not permit it under any circumstances, and that's my right. I understand that I can't file charges because it doesn't fit the legal definition of sexual assault, but I don't care. It is to me.
And the act, as it's being perpetrated at US airports by TSA, may not be done for the purpose of sexual gratification, but it's most definitely being done as a form of retaliation for opting out of the AIT scanners, and sometimes as retaliation for giving TSOs attitude or failing to obey them as quickly or completely as they wish, and sometimes just because a TSO is on a power trip.
And haven't we been told for decades that rape is not about sex, it's about power? As is sexual harassment in the workplace? This carp may or may not be about sexual gratification, but it's definitely about power.
Oct 29, 2012, 2:12 pm
#25
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: DFW
Programs: AA EXP, MR Gold, HH Gold
Posts: 926
Yeah, this. So what if they don't get off on it? (And you won't convince me some don't) They're touching sexual organs to humiliate and control - how is that NOT sexual?
Oct 29, 2012, 3:13 pm
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
