3 ms·

that you would dismiss this as "not a real crime" I do not dismiss it as 'not a real crime'. I dismiss it as sexual assault and I wish to strongly argue for no

that you would dismiss this as "not a real crime" I do not dismiss it as 'not a real crime'. I dismiss it as sexual assault and I wish to strongly argue for not polluting the meaning of that crime with instances of someone touching you inappropriately. "Enhanced pat-down," is a shockingly sick euphemism for "molestation policy." I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in danger if he doesn't search thoroughly. That isn't considered molestation and if that isn't, then neither is this. You are using dramatic words to make strong accusations to try and make a point that should be made in an entirely different way. These kinds of overly dramatic arguments are easy to dismiss and unfortunately, the real arguments that argue for the same solution will silently be dismissed along with them. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways without them being told about it upfront. The problem is that the legislation to allow this touching was passed in the first place, that the regulations depending on that regulation were put in place and that people actually seems to think this does anything to remove any threat. That is the problem.

X-Istence 16y ago
While I agree with the police officer example I do feel that is different. If I am getting arrested or am in a position where I have already broken a law then by all means I should be frisked in a way that allows them to verify I have nothing that could do any bodily harm to them. I have very limited rights when I am under arrest. It is the pre-emptive before anything happens TSA security theatre that makes it worse. By traveling I have not broken ANY laws yet I am still being subjected to a search that is extremely invasive and could be considered sexual assault. It is as if I was a bouncer (instated by the government) and each time you wanted to go to a bar or club I would need to frisk you in a way that made you highly uncomfortable and in any work place setting is considered sexual assault. People wouldn't stand for it. That is the case here as well, people won't stand for it.
phjohnst 16y ago
Totally agree with your security theatre point, even all of this does nothing. However, to keep in mind with the police, they must have a reasonable suspicion in order to search your person. They cannot simply stop everyone walking down the street and frisk them. And pretty much anything that the police do to you can be challenged in a court (obv whether you win is another thing, but the recourse is there). I think drawing parallels to (traditional) law enforcement practices is misleading.
agentultra 16y ago
I do not dismiss it as 'not a real crime'. I dismiss it as sexual assault and I wish to strongly argue for not polluting the meaning of that crime with instances of someone touching you inappropriately. Right there you deny, and then affirm my point. You don't think there was a crime, just that she was touched inappropriately. I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in danger if he doesn't search thoroughly. That isn't considered molestation and if that isn't, then neither is this. The police officer still requires just cause and must inform me of their intent. They cannot simply by virtue of being a police officer molest anyone they please. They have no right to apprehend someone and molest them. That would be a sexual assault crime as well. You are using dramatic words to make strong accusations to try and make a point that should be made in an entirely different way. These kinds of overly dramatic arguments are easy to dismiss and unfortunately, the real arguments that argue for the same solution will silently be dismissed along with them. I'm afraid that they will only be silently dismissed by those who are apologetic to perpetrators. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways without them being told about it upfront. The problem is that the legislation to allow this touching was passed in the first place, that the regulations depending on that regulation were put in place and that people actually seems to think this does anything to remove any threat. That is the problem. The victim will not likely feel any less violated or assaulted because you choose to call it, "inappropriate touching." That is something kids do when they don't know any better. The problem in this case was that this woman was molested. Whether that was because the TSA agent made a mistake, was improperly trained, or was a sexual predator remains a question for the courts to hear and determine. Either way the charge is the same and the victim is no less hurt by what happened. Calling it anything less is dismissing the crime. I'm not misappropriating the term with hyperbole. You're simply down-playing it. If we do not call it what it is, we choose to ignore it or apologize for it. Either way, it's a sign to me that you do not think there was a victim here and that this woman is not justified to feel the way she does as a victim of a crime. At least we do agree on one thing: the greater crime here is the policy itself. I simply hope that cases like this DO go to court so that the justice system can rule the policy unenforceable and compel the TSA to remove it.
- Confusion 16y ago

X-Istence 16y ago

While I agree with the police officer example I do feel that is different. If I am getting arrested or am in a position where I have already broken a law then by all means I should be frisked in a way that allows them to verify I have nothing that could do any bodily harm to them. I have very limited rights when I am under arrest. It is the pre-emptive before anything happens TSA security theatre that makes it worse. By traveling I have not broken ANY laws yet I am still being subjected to a search that is extremely invasive and could be considered sexual assault. It is as if I was a bouncer (instated by the government) and each time you wanted to go to a bar or club I would need to frisk you in a way that made you highly uncomfortable and in any work place setting is considered sexual assault. People wouldn't stand for it. That is the case here as well, people won't stand for it.

phjohnst 16y ago

Totally agree with your security theatre point, even all of this does nothing. However, to keep in mind with the police, they must have a reasonable suspicion in order to search your person. They cannot simply stop everyone walking down the street and frisk them. And pretty much anything that the police do to you can be challenged in a court (obv whether you win is another thing, but the recourse is there). I think drawing parallels to (traditional) law enforcement practices is misleading.

agentultra 16y ago

I do not dismiss it as 'not a real crime'. I dismiss it as sexual assault and I wish to strongly argue for not polluting the meaning of that crime with instances of someone touching you inappropriately. Right there you deny, and then affirm my point. You don't think there was a crime, just that she was touched inappropriately. I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in danger if he doesn't search thoroughly. That isn't considered molestation and if that isn't, then neither is this. The police officer still requires just cause and must inform me of their intent. They cannot simply by virtue of being a police officer molest anyone they please. They have no right to apprehend someone and molest them. That would be a sexual assault crime as well. You are using dramatic words to make strong accusations to try and make a point that should be made in an entirely different way. These kinds of overly dramatic arguments are easy to dismiss and unfortunately, the real arguments that argue for the same solution will silently be dismissed along with them. I'm afraid that they will only be silently dismissed by those who are apologetic to perpetrators. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways without them being told about it upfront. The problem is that the legislation to allow this touching was passed in the first place, that the regulations depending on that regulation were put in place and that people actually seems to think this does anything to remove any threat. That is the problem. The victim will not likely feel any less violated or assaulted because you choose to call it, "inappropriate touching." That is something kids do when they don't know any better. The problem in this case was that this woman was molested. Whether that was because the TSA agent made a mistake, was improperly trained, or was a sexual predator remains a question for the courts to hear and determine. Either way the charge is the same and the victim is no less hurt by what happened. Calling it anything less is dismissing the crime. I'm not misappropriating the term with hyperbole. You're simply down-playing it. If we do not call it what it is, we choose to ignore it or apologize for it. Either way, it's a sign to me that you do not think there was a victim here and that this woman is not justified to feel the way she does as a victim of a crime. At least we do agree on one thing: the greater crime here is the policy itself. I simply hope that cases like this DO go to court so that the justice system can rule the policy unenforceable and compel the TSA to remove it.

Confusion 16y ago