4 ms·
There might be a suit brought on behalf of one of these reporters and/or their employer arguing that the implication of consequences from such a powerful entity
by WiseWeasel 15y ago
There might be a suit brought on behalf of one of these reporters and/or their employer arguing that the implication of consequences from such a powerful entity without a court order constitutes illegal interference with their business, possibly entitling them to some damages, and more importantly, establishing some very important precedent which might prevent the TSA from ever attempting such a stunt in the future. I could certainly see many lawyers salivating at the prospect of winning a suit against such a well-funded target, not to mention the notoriety such a contentious issue would bring them in any event.
- jcampbell1 15y agoYou are not familiar with Sovereign Immunity. No lawyer in the world salivates at the thought of suing the federal government.
- praxeologist 15y agoReal lawyers do. We don't have real lawyers.
- WiseWeasel 15y agoMaybe you're not familiar with the Federal Tort Claims Act, which provides a waiver for the federal government's immunity in the case that a federal employee has been shown to have caused wrongful damage.
- jcampbell1 15y agoI am familiar with the Federal Tort Claims Act. No reasonable person would consider your original claim a tort. Where are the damages from one government employee making a hollow threat? What specific expenses or losses did the newspaper incur because a federal employee made a threat? Your case is weak, otherwise lawyers would be fully employed.
- beedogs 15y agoWhat if they suddenly find all of their reporters have been added to the federal no-fly list?
- mcherm 15y agoThen they would have a case. Also if if jackbooted TSA thugs showed up to burn down the newspaper building. But since no one has even alleged that any of these things have happened, can we skip the wild and crazy speculation?
- Drbble 15y agoExcept what actually happens (Hello, PATRIOT act!) is that all the evidence of harm is secret, and so the Supreme Court refuses to grant standing to any injured party, and so discovery never happens and the evidence can never be brought to light and the harm never proven in court. This story has been repeated over and over since 2002.