5 ms·
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
by 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 agoThey 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 agoI 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.