cme2c

Absolutely, diametrically opposed. The ACLU doesn't need a stupid case like this to "lay groundwork" for taking on bigger matters. If it does we have bigger problems. I am not saying the small fights don't need fought, just this one cause he deserved what he got. This guy did not have any of his rights violated. His freedom of speech was not suppressed. He left with his baggie and was not charged with anything. He was told that his 1st Amendment rights didn't apply in that situation, but they didn't suppress his right. Giving someone inaccurate information does not violate their rights. You would be stretching to say this was improper search and seizure. By the OP's post itself, he quotes the officer asking him if the baggie was some sort of a "threat". The officer was perceiving a threat and therefore felt he had probable cause to question him. So where is the violation of his rights?

boondoggie

Yep, pretty funny and has been posted here a few times.

But for some reason no one ever points out that the TSA officers were completely professional and reasonable the entire time.

GUWonder

Government retaliation for expressing a constitutionally-protected political opinion is a violation of the OP's First Amendment rights. Hostile, discriminatory treatment on the basis of constitutionally-protected written expression is a violation. If this was the IRS conducting increased audits of members of "the opposition political party" and there was no finding of non-compliance with the law, would you have the ACLU sit that fight out too?

Sprocket

I'd hate to think about what the OP would have gone through today with such a stunt. Although it might not have been all that troublesome if there was nothing written on the device.

bollar

Don't be surprised if you find no interest if you don't reply back to them by tomorrow.

As others have reported, the TSA often never responds to complaints. Heck, they wouldn't call my Congressman back...

cme2c

Totally comparing apples to oranges in your example with the IRS. The TSA officer perceived a threat, the OP acknowledged that in his post. How did the TSA officer know this was a political opinion? Did the OP write "Political Opinion" below it? If I was a TSA officer and saw it, I would first think it was unusual and be questioning it. What kind of an idiot expresses their "political opinion" in this manner, there are much better ways. The OP has even admitted that he was trying to "draw" them into conversation. He knew it would generate a reaction. Kinda sounds like entrapment to me.

GUWonder

I'd welcome you to Flyertalk, but I don't welcome violations of Flyertalk's terms of service which prohibit personal attacks directed at fellow members of Flyertalk.

Are you a supporter of the TSA dog and pony show and selective government bashing of the First Amendment?

GUWonder

Do you agree that government retaliation for expressing a constitutionally-protected political opinion is a violation of First Amendment rights?

Do you agree that hostile, discriminatory treatment on the basis of constitutionally-protected written expression is a violation of First Amendment rights?

If this was the IRS conducting increased audits of members of "the opposition political party" and there was no finding of non-compliance with the law, would you have the ACLU sit that fight out too?

Answer those questions and we'll see if it's apples to oranges or not.

What threat did the TSA officer perceive?

Just because a government official/agent cannot classify well does not insulate them any more than negligence of a law protects a person violating a law.

See above.

People have a right to express their political opinions even if you, as a TSA officer, were to think it idiotic or disagree with their political opinion. That you think there are better ways does not give a TSAer or LEO the right to pick and choose where and how the First Amendment applies.

Doesn't make a difference if the OP was trying to draw them into conversation or not, and entrapment has little bearing since in a court of law that concept most normally is applied to government actors, not the actions of non-state actors like the OP.

ALARISstl

I have the following address memorized for this exact type of incident:

1060 West Addison
Chicago, IL 60613

(Wrigley Field)

TSAs, LEOs: majority are a bunch of powertripping a-holes !

MKEbound

Bolding mine

Isn't it nice to know you live in a county where you can call me an idiot and not worry about being threatened with arrest? Or be asked, "Do you want to fly today?" How about being patted down like a common criminal for no reason other than to fill the foolish requirement of "secondary screening"...oh wait you do live in a country where those things could happen.

Welcome to Flyertalk!

Gargoyle

Not any more; since Aug. 10 they made shoe removal mandatory. Note the connection- people in London caught plotting to blow up planes with bombs which wouldn't work, so we have to send shoes through an x-ray machine which won't detect bombs in our insoles.

Meantime the TSA is too busy rewriting the constitution to consider scanning commercial air freight.

The situation the OP found himself in is not trivial; it may have started with something very small, but hit opened up a window into something huge, something which anyone who has studied American history or the Constitution should take very seriously.

RichMSN

Very few "first posters" in threads like these are people that will make a second post, it seems.

cme2c

What threat did he perceive? I can't speak for him. Maybe you should talk to him yourself, since you are so quick to judge him. But the OP indicated in his original thread that one of the officers indicated that a threat was perceived. Is that unreasonable in that situation to perceive the OP's action as a threat? That is not a determination that any of us that weren't there could make.

To quote the OP:
"
He grabbed the baggie as it came out of the X-ray and asked if it was mine. After responding yes, he pointed at my comment and demanded to know "What is this supposed to mean?" "It could me a lot of things, it happens to be an opinion on mine." "You can't write things like this" he said, "You mean my First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn't apply here?" "Out there (pointing pass the id checkers) not while in here (pointing down) was his response."

Now to me, why say: "it could me (I assume that was supposed to say "meant") a lot of things? Right then and there he is being evasive and if I were in the position of the TSA agent, I would be suspicious. That is easily enough probable cause to further question him.

justageek

Yes, for better or worse this thread has been mentioned on tons of high-profile blogs in the last 24 hours, which means we're going to be seeing a lot of comments from infrequent travelers who have had little exposure to the TSA and have no idea what they're talking about.

People often ask why FlyerTalkers are so heavily skewed towards the anti-TSA camp, and the answer is very simple: because we're the ones who have to put up with TSA's incompetence, ineffectiveness, and intimidation on a daily/weekly basis.

If you rarely find yourself at an airport, it's easy to say people shouldn't have rights there.

Superguy

The question shouldn't have been asked to begin with. So what if someone thinks Hawley is an idiot? So what if he writes it on a bag?

They made an issue out of a nonissue. Unfortunately, TSA made a constitutional issue out of it.