RSS
Apparently Stripping Nude To Protest TSA Search Is Protected By The First Amendment
from the in-oregon-at-least dept
A few months ago, you may have heard about John Brennan, who was going through Portland International Airport, and felt that the TSA screening procedures were the equivalent of harassing him. In response, to protest, he stripped naked... and was promptly arrested for disorderly conduct and indecent exposure. However, a court has now acquitted Brennan by saying that the stripping was an act of public protest, and thus protected by the First Amendment. The judge pointed out that there's already state precedent in Oregon that anti-nudity laws "do not apply in cases of protest."
"It is the speech itself that the state is seeking to punish, and that it cannot do," Circuit Judge David Rees said.The DA who prosecuted the case is complaining that now anyone arrested for indecent exposure can just claim that it's a protest.
Deputy District Attorney Joel Petersen argued that Brennan only spoke of a protest minutes later. Petersen urged the judge to recognize that distinction, "otherwise any other person who is ever naked will be able to state after the fact" that it was done in protest.Of course, this now raises the troubling (or appealing, depending on your nature) idea that stripping at the front of the TSA line may become more popular. That said, if you're now... er... itching to disrobe in front of the TSA, it's worth noting that this ruling is specific to Oregon, and who knows how other states might deal with the same issue.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Who knows how other states might deal with the same issue
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who knows how other states might deal with the same issue
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because you protest . . .
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just because you protest . . .
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just because you protest . . .
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just because you protest . . .
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I didn't miss all the free naked girls. I try to follow those stuff (OWS, 15M etc) on Twitter (though I don't always succeed) and Twitter has become the best source of amateur erotica ever.
They can buy tshirts alright but I'm all for not using if not necessary ;D
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
That's silly. Brennan stripped during what many Americans feel is an insulting and degrading security theater spectacle. If someone is just randomly running around naked and gets arrested for indecent exposure, what treatment prior to them stripping could they point at to say they were protesting? Brennan had a reasonable context for his claim of protest. Other such accused people might not depending on their circumstances.
The DA just doesn't want legitimate protesters (even spontaneous ones) from being able to fight charges meant to keep the airport chattel in line.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An "indecent exposure" charge in Oregon means a lot more than that you were naked, and it makes the DA's concern nothing more than pure bullshit.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But, despite the law, you don't see a lot of people walking around naked even when it isn't wet & chilly outside. We do have quite a few nude beaches and swimming holes, though, and some festivals and gatherings offer a nice view.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've often considered doing just that in protest of public indecency laws. If I'm ever in Oregon I now know the first thing I need to do.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Made me think of this from Old School
Frank: Cool.
Peppers: Yeah, it is cool. They say it can puncture the skin of a rhino from...
[Frank shoots himself in the neck with the dart]
Peppers: YES! That's awesome!
Frank: What?
Peppers: You just took one in the jugular, man.
Frank: What? I did.
[feeling his neck]
Peppers: YES!
Frank: Oh, my God. Is this bad? Is this bad?
Peppers: You better pull that shit out, man. That shit is not cool.
Frank: Wait. What? Pull what out?
Peppers: You got a fucking dart in your neck, man.
Frank: [laughing] You're... you're crazy, man. I like you, but you're crazy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What?
"What does mine say?"
"Dude! What does mine say?"
Sweet! What does mine say?"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Just in time!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
They're protesting anti-nudity laws, obviously.
(side note: re-reading the "ever naked" part makes me wonder if this particular DA showers with his clothes on)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
They're protesting anti-nudity laws, obviously.
(side note: re-reading the "ever naked" part makes me wonder if this particular DA showers with his clothes on)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Just think about it though if everyone who went to an airport carried a pocket knife on them one day. TSA end up having to check everyone and finding a knife on almost everyone they check. The system would crash and they could not handle it.
The whole thing is just stupid these days. There is no way in hell anyone is going to hijack a plane anymore. I don't care if you have an assault rifle, the other passengers will kill you if you stand up and say your taking the plane.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This. I've been saying this since 9/12/01. 9/11 was a zero-day exploit, a hack that demonstrates the vulnerability of the system in the act of using it. It's something that can never happen again (as long as we remember it) and being afraid of terrorists hijacking airplanes anymore is ridiculous.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the route I wouldn't gone
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the route I wouldn't gone
Bloody typos...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the route I wouldn't gone
LOL and LMAO. Of course, I hope you realize that you may have found the biggest loophole there is that would get around both the public nudity laws and indecency laws in most states :-)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Lady Godiva
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lady Godiva
At least Tom says so.
Right, "Peeping" Tom?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Not like it wasn't provoked...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
A quibble with the title.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A quibble with the title.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A quibble with the title.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A quibble with the title.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Searches
Now that I have the story, I honestly have no problem being scanned. But man alive it's funny (and awesome) that someone finally got away with stripping down in protest :-)
If any of you have been scanned, let me reassure you the only level of exposure is the radiation of a normal x-ray or MRI scan. The outline of your body isn't very visible. Don't get me wrong, I still hate being scanned like that, I've just gotten too used to it. Those 3d images that the scanners produced were a-kin to the public notification of the F-117 Stealth Bomber. It wasn't real and the press could not show you the x-ray resolution for the scanners due to matters of national security.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
In other News
Nigel
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Naked Oregon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gG0mqx25lQ
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment