5 ms·

Could a resident lawyer explain the full effect of this bill? Text of the bill: SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS. No law of the U

Could a resident lawyer explain the full effect of this bill? Text of the bill: SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS. No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.

swombat 16y ago
IANAL, but I believe it means that if you misbehave while giving a pat-down or by storing child porn pictures from the x-ray scanner, you will got to jail and the organisation responsible for your actions will go down in flames, just the same as if you were guilty of sexual assault or pedophily and they condoned it with company policy, no matter whether anyone gave consent for you to perform your dirty deeds. This puts enormous emphasis on airports and/or security organisations to make absolutely god damn sure that no such misbehaviour happen, unless they want to be wide open to lawsuits that will tear them to shreds.
- PedroCandeias 16y ago
  Well, I see that as A Good Thing.
- c1sc0 16y ago
  How could "storing child pictures from the x-ray scanner" every qualify as child porn?!
  - swombat 16y ago
    They're pictures of naked children. If an underage teenager texting a naked picture of themselves qualifies as a child pornographer, a TSA employee storing pictures of a naked child certainly does too.
    - c1sc0 16y ago
      Doesn't mean it is right though. Wikipedia: "Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction." How is a simple picture of a naked child explicit or exciting?
      - swombat 16y ago
        Sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction are in the eye of the beholder.
      - oiuyhgrftgthyju 16y ago
        It does with kids - there is no artistic defense - if it's pink it's porn.
        c1sc0 16y ago
        Really? Pink is porn now? Well, suit you sir, suit you! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amor_Vincit_Omnia_(Caravaggio) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amor_Vincit_Omnia_(Caravaggio)
        oiuyhgrftgthyju 16y ago
        This page got wikipedia temprarily banned in the UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer Of course you could still buy the album in the shops
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      Shouldn't you consider fixing the law that considers anything "child pornography" instead of trying to make even more stuff be considered child porn? The example of that unfortunate hentai collector comes to mind.
      - SageRaven 16y ago
        In a perfect world, yes. But maybe once the feds and their outsourced hands get painted with the same broad brush as the populace, maybe we'll see some of these way-too-broad think-of-the-children laws be tossed out and rewritten to something resembling sane policy.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    Oh, sweet Jesus, have you just started reading the Internet today? People have been convicted on child porn charges for pictures they took of their own children in the bathtub. Any picture of any child or any non-child or cartoon character intended just to look like a child has been treated as full-blown pedophilia for the last ten years or more. Computers have been impounded and people ruined - and it's always won't someone think of the children, until it's the TSA doing it and that's just hunky-dory because we have to stay safe at any possible cost. I have to go have a little lie-down now, the grar is melting my brain.
tallanvor 16y ago
It's a bit silly if that's the extent of the bill, and it's difficult to say exactly how courts would apply it, but basically it says that the TSA (well, every government agency) and their employees do not have immunity if they do something wrong or illegal. The easiest examples would be with children. A TSA employee could be charged for viewing the image of a child produced by the new imaging scanners on the grounds that it could be considered pornographic. Or if a TSA employee pats down a child, it could be considered molestation. Again, though, it's really difficult to say what effects, if any, this bill would realistically have, especially if that's all there is to it (it's not available on THOMAS yet). In any event, I can't see this bill getting through the House, not to mention the problem of trying to find a sponsor in the Senate.
- andrew1 16y ago
  They would presumably be covered by the same kind of immunity as the police/welfare officers when it is necessary for them to view child pornography (in the context of investigation a child pornographer) or to search a child (for some valid reason, suspected of carrying drugs/weapons?).
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  I can't see this bill getting through the House, not to mention the problem of trying to find a sponsor in the Senate. Come January, I assume that Dr. Paul's son Rand would be happy to sponsor it.
michael_dorfman 16y ago
Ron Paul's intent, as he describes, is to say that TSA employees shouldn't be allowed to do anything anyone else can't do. If you or I (or Ron) are not allowed to grope people the TSA employee shouldn't be allowed to grope people. If you and I are not allowed to expose people to X-rays, the TSA employee shouldn't be allowed to expose people to X-rays. Etc. In other words, it's not about outlawing "misbehavior" by TSA employees, it's about outlawing the bulk of their job, as performed recently.
- ataggart 16y ago
  That was my impression as well, though it seems inconsistent with the point of government. The sole distinguishing characteristic of government, that which sets it apart from all other forms of human organization, is its capacity to legitimately perform acts that would be considered criminal for anyone else to do. Absent the legitimacy, they would be a protection racket; absent the power, they would be a non-profit organization.
  - ataggart 16y ago
    Down-vote? Interesting.
  - com 16y ago
    You're arguing the completist case: that of a totalitarian state, where legitimacy is significantly a function of the execution of power against part of the populace. One intermediate form of a state is a rule-of-law state which regularly trades significant power for increased legitimacy - examples are chartered government agencies that have a goal (source of core legitimacy), are governed by public legislation and regulation, and who are restricted in the the types of power they may wield in all situations and who are subject to an independent administrative, judicial or political review which may be triggered by aggrieved members of the populace. They gain additional legitimacy by the fact that they may only use the least force or power that is considered by the populace as necessary to achieve their legitimate goals. I quite like rule-of-law states, and find the current rebalancing of minimum power/legitimate goals very interesting in a historical context, viz. security theatre and traditional concepts of civil liberties.

swombat 16y ago

IANAL, but I believe it means that if you misbehave while giving a pat-down or by storing child porn pictures from the x-ray scanner, you will got to jail and the organisation responsible for your actions will go down in flames, just the same as if you were guilty of sexual assault or pedophily and they condoned it with company policy, no matter whether anyone gave consent for you to perform your dirty deeds. This puts enormous emphasis on airports and/or security organisations to make absolutely god damn sure that no such misbehaviour happen, unless they want to be wide open to lawsuits that will tear them to shreds.

PedroCandeias 16y ago
Well, I see that as A Good Thing.
c1sc0 16y ago
How could "storing child pictures from the x-ray scanner" every qualify as child porn?!
- swombat 16y ago
  They're pictures of naked children. If an underage teenager texting a naked picture of themselves qualifies as a child pornographer, a TSA employee storing pictures of a naked child certainly does too.
  - c1sc0 16y ago
    Doesn't mean it is right though. Wikipedia: "Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction." How is a simple picture of a naked child explicit or exciting?
    - swombat 16y ago
      Sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction are in the eye of the beholder.
    - oiuyhgrftgthyju 16y ago
      It does with kids - there is no artistic defense - if it's pink it's porn.
      - c1sc0 16y ago
        Really? Pink is porn now? Well, suit you sir, suit you! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amor_Vincit_Omnia_(Caravaggio) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amor_Vincit_Omnia_(Caravaggio)
        oiuyhgrftgthyju 16y ago
        This page got wikipedia temprarily banned in the UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer Of course you could still buy the album in the shops
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Shouldn't you consider fixing the law that considers anything "child pornography" instead of trying to make even more stuff be considered child porn? The example of that unfortunate hentai collector comes to mind.
    - SageRaven 16y ago
      In a perfect world, yes. But maybe once the feds and their outsourced hands get painted with the same broad brush as the populace, maybe we'll see some of these way-too-broad think-of-the-children laws be tossed out and rewritten to something resembling sane policy.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Oh, sweet Jesus, have you just started reading the Internet today? People have been convicted on child porn charges for pictures they took of their own children in the bathtub. Any picture of any child or any non-child or cartoon character intended just to look like a child has been treated as full-blown pedophilia for the last ten years or more. Computers have been impounded and people ruined - and it's always won't someone think of the children, until it's the TSA doing it and that's just hunky-dory because we have to stay safe at any possible cost. I have to go have a little lie-down now, the grar is melting my brain.

tallanvor 16y ago

It's a bit silly if that's the extent of the bill, and it's difficult to say exactly how courts would apply it, but basically it says that the TSA (well, every government agency) and their employees do not have immunity if they do something wrong or illegal. The easiest examples would be with children. A TSA employee could be charged for viewing the image of a child produced by the new imaging scanners on the grounds that it could be considered pornographic. Or if a TSA employee pats down a child, it could be considered molestation. Again, though, it's really difficult to say what effects, if any, this bill would realistically have, especially if that's all there is to it (it's not available on THOMAS yet). In any event, I can't see this bill getting through the House, not to mention the problem of trying to find a sponsor in the Senate.

andrew1 16y ago
They would presumably be covered by the same kind of immunity as the police/welfare officers when it is necessary for them to view child pornography (in the context of investigation a child pornographer) or to search a child (for some valid reason, suspected of carrying drugs/weapons?).
CWuestefeld 16y ago
I can't see this bill getting through the House, not to mention the problem of trying to find a sponsor in the Senate. Come January, I assume that Dr. Paul's son Rand would be happy to sponsor it.

michael_dorfman 16y ago

Ron Paul's intent, as he describes, is to say that TSA employees shouldn't be allowed to do anything anyone else can't do. If you or I (or Ron) are not allowed to grope people the TSA employee shouldn't be allowed to grope people. If you and I are not allowed to expose people to X-rays, the TSA employee shouldn't be allowed to expose people to X-rays. Etc. In other words, it's not about outlawing "misbehavior" by TSA employees, it's about outlawing the bulk of their job, as performed recently.

ataggart 16y ago
That was my impression as well, though it seems inconsistent with the point of government. The sole distinguishing characteristic of government, that which sets it apart from all other forms of human organization, is its capacity to legitimately perform acts that would be considered criminal for anyone else to do. Absent the legitimacy, they would be a protection racket; absent the power, they would be a non-profit organization.
- ataggart 16y ago
  Down-vote? Interesting.
- com 16y ago
  You're arguing the completist case: that of a totalitarian state, where legitimacy is significantly a function of the execution of power against part of the populace. One intermediate form of a state is a rule-of-law state which regularly trades significant power for increased legitimacy - examples are chartered government agencies that have a goal (source of core legitimacy), are governed by public legislation and regulation, and who are restricted in the the types of power they may wield in all situations and who are subject to an independent administrative, judicial or political review which may be triggered by aggrieved members of the populace. They gain additional legitimacy by the fact that they may only use the least force or power that is considered by the populace as necessary to achieve their legitimate goals. I quite like rule-of-law states, and find the current rebalancing of minimum power/legitimate goals very interesting in a historical context, viz. security theatre and traditional concepts of civil liberties.