6 ms·

When you decide to yell out the words to the 4th amendment at the same exact moment you are being processed through the security checkpoint at an airport, you a

by phaus 15y ago

When you decide to yell out the words to the 4th amendment at the same exact moment you are being processed through the security checkpoint at an airport, you are intentionally trying to cause a scene. This can and would be construed by any reasonable person as an attempt to disrupt the screening process. The author knew exactly what she was doing. While I'm not sure it was grounds for an arrest, she was maliciously attempting to provoke some sort of response from the TSA. I hate the TSA as much as anyone, but when you do stupid things on purpose, stupid things happen to you.

peterwwillis 15y ago
These stupid things are also incredibly brave and necessary. If you have no other way of fighting what you know is wrong, you have to provoke a response.
- phaus 15y ago
  She didn't accomplish anything besides making herself look like a lunatic. As I stated, I really hate the TSA and all of the abuses that have occurred, but this isn't going to help. The TSA has been guilty on numerous occasions of violating a person's constitutional rights. They have endangered the lives of some passengers and outright assaulted others. I really do hope that they are taken to task for the things that they have done, but I don't believe they were wrong to call the police. When you aren't sure what to do in a situation, it is best to defer things to a higher authority. If the police decided she should be arrested, they are the ones responsible for the decision, not the TSA. Whether or not what she did constituted a crime, I don't know, but she was disrupting the process. When I was pulling guard duty in the desert, anyone who acted in an unusual manner would have been detained. I am aware that this event took place in the United States, but the bottom line is you don't mess around with safety. Until the day that the TSA is no longer in charge of airport security, they are responsible for making sure their job gets done. How easy would it be for you to remain focused on your work while someone is standing in front of you yelling out the words to the 4th amendment? If we don't like the TSA, we need to go through the proper channels every time they do something that violates the law. Don't let them get away with anything. I know that it is extremely difficult to get the government to change anything, but the only way to get rid of the TSA is to put people in office that will side with the American people on this issue.
  - dantheman 15y ago
    "the bottom line is you don't mess around with safety. " The TSA fails at Safety, this is just bullshit security theater. If I could, I'd fly with absolutely no security screening before the flight. I'll take my chances instead of slowly losing my life waiting in their "security" lines.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    You know, I can understand not being brave enough to do this yourself. I'm not. But pooh-poohing those who do do it? "Proper channels"? Yeah, I'm sure they're getting right on it. How bad would it have to be before you stopped saying "Oh quit causing a disturbance"? I mean, this is already violating our most sacrosanct freedoms. Would I have to violate godwin's law to get you to agree with civil disobedience?
    - phaus 15y ago
      You seem to think that she is fighting the good fight on behalf of humanity. She is a professional writer who did this as a publicity stunt so she could write about the experience afterwards. Her biggest accomplishment is that she managed to make one of the scummiest organizations in the United States appear to be in the right. Way to go freedom fighter.
      - jbooth 15y ago
        Ah, so we've catapulted the whole defending the erosion of our rights thing and now we're into personally insulting the person who told the story. Good move, considering the grounds of your argument and all. I'll repeat my question.. how bad would it have to be for you to agree with civil disobedience?
        phaus 15y ago
        I never said that I disagree with civil disobedience. I just don't agree with this woman's perspective on exactly what transpired in this situation. I've worked for the federal government my entire adult life. If you want to convince them to get rid of the TSA, the side asking for the change has to appear blameless. The way bureaucrats make decisions is not logical. If you give them 999 examples of the TSA breaking the law or violating basic human rights, they will simply shrug and say "remember that one time that woman went to that airport and purposely tried to get arrested? Yea, well these other complaints are probably from people just like her." To make it clear, I don't like the corrupt, incompetent, abusive illusion of a democracy that we have built for ourselves in the United States. Unfortunately, the scumbags at the TSA has been put in charge of our Nation's airports. Unfortunately, if you want to board an aircraft in the United States, you have to submit to being processed through the security checkpoint. Unfortunately, if we want this to change it will be a long and painful process. This woman's efforts will have no positive impact on the effort to get the TSA disbanded or reformed. Being able to recognize this doesn't make me a freedom-hating fascist. I would appreciate it if you didn't try to imply that I am.
- anamax 15y ago
  > These stupid things are also incredibly brave and necessary. Suppose she had started reciting[1] the 10 commandments or jabberwocky? Would you have had the same reaction? If you go with "the US constitution is relevant" then she's got a problem. She claims that she didn't resist a search. That can only be true if she thinks that reciting US constitution clauses on search aren't relevant to the situation, namely a search. So, which is it? Was reciting the US constitution her way of refusing a search or was it just words? [1] She wasn't "reading" anything - she was reciting various parts of the US constitution from memory.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    I'm trying to wrap my head around this comment. The 4th amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizure. And you're saying "shame on her for refusing a search"?
    - anamax 15y ago
      > And you're saying "shame on her for refusing a search"? No, I'm not. I'm saying that if you think that reciting the 4th amendment when going through TSA is relevant, that relevance would lead a reasonable person to believe that she was resisting the search. I mention relevance because commenters are suggesting that reciting the 4th amendment is meaningful in a way that reciting jabberwocky would not have been.
      - jbooth 15y ago
        OF COURSE it's meaningful in a way that reciting jabberwocky would not have been. Reading the part of the constitution which protects people from unreasonable searches without probable cause, while being forced to undergo a search without probable cause. If it's still unclear how the amendment is meaningful in this situation, I'm going to ask that you go re-read the original article, then "letters from birmingham jail" and the whole bill of rights.
        anamax 15y ago
- easp 15y ago
  Some people dismiss the power and value of symbolism (particularly symbolism that doesn't resonate with THEM, even if it resonates with other people). Perhaps this particular bit of symbolism, or the way it was deployed, won't end up being effective, but experimentation and iteration is key.
  - ChrisLTD 15y ago
    I think you may have just invented 'Agile Protests'!
jberryman 15y ago
> When you decide to yell out the words to the 4th amendment at the same exact moment you are being processed through the security checkpoint at an airport, you are intentionally trying to cause a scene. I can also easily see this kind of behavior causing a panic in the screening line. Maybe this isn't fair, but this is how I would imagine a right-wing domestic terrorist to act right before they blew themselves up. I'm all for civil disobedience, but this is just oblivious and antisocial to the extreme.
- eternalban 15y ago
  TSA groping your children is "antisocial". So pray tell us where you plan to take "legal" political action on this matter? Or is your "right-wing domestic terrorist" remark indicative of your actually buying into this theatre?
  - revdinosaur 15y ago
    Actually, her behavior (and narrative) is similar to that of "sovereign citizen" types who imbue all sorts of psuedo-legal meaning to the U.S. Constitution and what they think it allows them to do. Not all sovereign citizen groups are violent but there were two police officers murdered in TX in 2010 and several militias operating under this philosophy.
    - eternalban 15y ago
      State craft is complex and messy business, agreed. The government of Assad is currently facing "militias" in Homs and has the same precise pov as you. (It's reasonable; I'm not, repeat, blind to the burden of just rule.) But I myself, as an American citizen, strongly object to the continued attacks on my natural rights and these "solutions" that consistently erode the limits placed on the State powers. We had a revolution in this country precisely to determine the balance between natural "rights" and collective "laws". The United States of America has precisely ZERO input on what is "allowed" as far as Natural Rights are concerned. USA may provide privileges. I myself, for example, was "sold" the following story before I elected to become a naturalized citizen of USA: "Inalienable Rights". That sounded (and still does) just right for me -- I happen to agree very strongly with the idea. But now, n years into this contract, and the USA (and some citizens such as yourself) are now telling me that I have no rights unless that it is "allowed" by the USA. So, was I scammed (in your eminent "legal" opinion)?
antoinevg 15y ago
> "you are intentionally trying to cause a scene" Yes, because we're British and GodForbidWeShouldCreateAScene(tm). lolololol
easp 15y ago
Cops lean on people they've decided are "undesirable" with the intent of provoking them to do something they can be arrested for. The FBI cultivates antisocial young american muslims until they entrap them into doing something so they can trot them out as boogeymen on CNN. We can disagree with the ethics of such things, but is there disagreement that provoking a response can be a useful tactic?
glenra 15y ago
You make it sound like "disrupting the screening process" is a bad thing.
ScottBurson 15y ago
I'm having the same reaction. I hate the TSA so much I avoid flying if at all possible, and indeed haven't been on a plane in three years. But making a scene like this accomplishes nothing. Or, possibly less than nothing -- if the onlookers thought she was a kook. If, instead of doing this at the security checkpoint, she wanted to stand at the entrance to the airport speaking and handing out leaflets, she would be exercising her First Amendment rights, and I would hope they would accommodate her. (If they didn't, I wouldn't be surprised, but I would be angry.) But what she chose to do was just pointless.

by phaus 15y ago

peterwwillis 15y ago

These stupid things are also incredibly brave and necessary. If you have no other way of fighting what you know is wrong, you have to provoke a response.

phaus 15y ago
She didn't accomplish anything besides making herself look like a lunatic. As I stated, I really hate the TSA and all of the abuses that have occurred, but this isn't going to help. The TSA has been guilty on numerous occasions of violating a person's constitutional rights. They have endangered the lives of some passengers and outright assaulted others. I really do hope that they are taken to task for the things that they have done, but I don't believe they were wrong to call the police. When you aren't sure what to do in a situation, it is best to defer things to a higher authority. If the police decided she should be arrested, they are the ones responsible for the decision, not the TSA. Whether or not what she did constituted a crime, I don't know, but she was disrupting the process. When I was pulling guard duty in the desert, anyone who acted in an unusual manner would have been detained. I am aware that this event took place in the United States, but the bottom line is you don't mess around with safety. Until the day that the TSA is no longer in charge of airport security, they are responsible for making sure their job gets done. How easy would it be for you to remain focused on your work while someone is standing in front of you yelling out the words to the 4th amendment? If we don't like the TSA, we need to go through the proper channels every time they do something that violates the law. Don't let them get away with anything. I know that it is extremely difficult to get the government to change anything, but the only way to get rid of the TSA is to put people in office that will side with the American people on this issue.
- dantheman 15y ago
  "the bottom line is you don't mess around with safety. " The TSA fails at Safety, this is just bullshit security theater. If I could, I'd fly with absolutely no security screening before the flight. I'll take my chances instead of slowly losing my life waiting in their "security" lines.
- jbooth 15y ago
  You know, I can understand not being brave enough to do this yourself. I'm not. But pooh-poohing those who do do it? "Proper channels"? Yeah, I'm sure they're getting right on it. How bad would it have to be before you stopped saying "Oh quit causing a disturbance"? I mean, this is already violating our most sacrosanct freedoms. Would I have to violate godwin's law to get you to agree with civil disobedience?
  - phaus 15y ago
    You seem to think that she is fighting the good fight on behalf of humanity. She is a professional writer who did this as a publicity stunt so she could write about the experience afterwards. Her biggest accomplishment is that she managed to make one of the scummiest organizations in the United States appear to be in the right. Way to go freedom fighter.
    - jbooth 15y ago
      Ah, so we've catapulted the whole defending the erosion of our rights thing and now we're into personally insulting the person who told the story. Good move, considering the grounds of your argument and all. I'll repeat my question.. how bad would it have to be for you to agree with civil disobedience?
      - phaus 15y ago
        I never said that I disagree with civil disobedience. I just don't agree with this woman's perspective on exactly what transpired in this situation. I've worked for the federal government my entire adult life. If you want to convince them to get rid of the TSA, the side asking for the change has to appear blameless. The way bureaucrats make decisions is not logical. If you give them 999 examples of the TSA breaking the law or violating basic human rights, they will simply shrug and say "remember that one time that woman went to that airport and purposely tried to get arrested? Yea, well these other complaints are probably from people just like her." To make it clear, I don't like the corrupt, incompetent, abusive illusion of a democracy that we have built for ourselves in the United States. Unfortunately, the scumbags at the TSA has been put in charge of our Nation's airports. Unfortunately, if you want to board an aircraft in the United States, you have to submit to being processed through the security checkpoint. Unfortunately, if we want this to change it will be a long and painful process. This woman's efforts will have no positive impact on the effort to get the TSA disbanded or reformed. Being able to recognize this doesn't make me a freedom-hating fascist. I would appreciate it if you didn't try to imply that I am.
anamax 15y ago
> These stupid things are also incredibly brave and necessary. Suppose she had started reciting[1] the 10 commandments or jabberwocky? Would you have had the same reaction? If you go with "the US constitution is relevant" then she's got a problem. She claims that she didn't resist a search. That can only be true if she thinks that reciting US constitution clauses on search aren't relevant to the situation, namely a search. So, which is it? Was reciting the US constitution her way of refusing a search or was it just words? [1] She wasn't "reading" anything - she was reciting various parts of the US constitution from memory.
- jbooth 15y ago
  I'm trying to wrap my head around this comment. The 4th amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizure. And you're saying "shame on her for refusing a search"?
  - anamax 15y ago
    > And you're saying "shame on her for refusing a search"? No, I'm not. I'm saying that if you think that reciting the 4th amendment when going through TSA is relevant, that relevance would lead a reasonable person to believe that she was resisting the search. I mention relevance because commenters are suggesting that reciting the 4th amendment is meaningful in a way that reciting jabberwocky would not have been.
    - jbooth 15y ago
      OF COURSE it's meaningful in a way that reciting jabberwocky would not have been. Reading the part of the constitution which protects people from unreasonable searches without probable cause, while being forced to undergo a search without probable cause. If it's still unclear how the amendment is meaningful in this situation, I'm going to ask that you go re-read the original article, then "letters from birmingham jail" and the whole bill of rights.
      - anamax 15y ago
easp 15y ago
Some people dismiss the power and value of symbolism (particularly symbolism that doesn't resonate with THEM, even if it resonates with other people). Perhaps this particular bit of symbolism, or the way it was deployed, won't end up being effective, but experimentation and iteration is key.
- ChrisLTD 15y ago
  I think you may have just invented 'Agile Protests'!

jberryman 15y ago

> When you decide to yell out the words to the 4th amendment at the same exact moment you are being processed through the security checkpoint at an airport, you are intentionally trying to cause a scene. I can also easily see this kind of behavior causing a panic in the screening line. Maybe this isn't fair, but this is how I would imagine a right-wing domestic terrorist to act right before they blew themselves up. I'm all for civil disobedience, but this is just oblivious and antisocial to the extreme.

eternalban 15y ago
TSA groping your children is "antisocial". So pray tell us where you plan to take "legal" political action on this matter? Or is your "right-wing domestic terrorist" remark indicative of your actually buying into this theatre?
- revdinosaur 15y ago
  Actually, her behavior (and narrative) is similar to that of "sovereign citizen" types who imbue all sorts of psuedo-legal meaning to the U.S. Constitution and what they think it allows them to do. Not all sovereign citizen groups are violent but there were two police officers murdered in TX in 2010 and several militias operating under this philosophy.
  - eternalban 15y ago
    State craft is complex and messy business, agreed. The government of Assad is currently facing "militias" in Homs and has the same precise pov as you. (It's reasonable; I'm not, repeat, blind to the burden of just rule.) But I myself, as an American citizen, strongly object to the continued attacks on my natural rights and these "solutions" that consistently erode the limits placed on the State powers. We had a revolution in this country precisely to determine the balance between natural "rights" and collective "laws". The United States of America has precisely ZERO input on what is "allowed" as far as Natural Rights are concerned. USA may provide privileges. I myself, for example, was "sold" the following story before I elected to become a naturalized citizen of USA: "Inalienable Rights". That sounded (and still does) just right for me -- I happen to agree very strongly with the idea. But now, n years into this contract, and the USA (and some citizens such as yourself) are now telling me that I have no rights unless that it is "allowed" by the USA. So, was I scammed (in your eminent "legal" opinion)?

antoinevg 15y ago

> "you are intentionally trying to cause a scene" Yes, because we're British and GodForbidWeShouldCreateAScene(tm). lolololol

easp 15y ago

Cops lean on people they've decided are "undesirable" with the intent of provoking them to do something they can be arrested for. The FBI cultivates antisocial young american muslims until they entrap them into doing something so they can trot them out as boogeymen on CNN. We can disagree with the ethics of such things, but is there disagreement that provoking a response can be a useful tactic?

glenra 15y ago

You make it sound like "disrupting the screening process" is a bad thing.

ScottBurson 15y ago

I'm having the same reaction. I hate the TSA so much I avoid flying if at all possible, and indeed haven't been on a plane in three years. But making a scene like this accomplishes nothing. Or, possibly less than nothing -- if the onlookers thought she was a kook. If, instead of doing this at the security checkpoint, she wanted to stand at the entrance to the airport speaking and handing out leaflets, she would be exercising her First Amendment rights, and I would hope they would accommodate her. (If they didn't, I wouldn't be surprised, but I would be angry.) But what she chose to do was just pointless.