Man With 4th Amendment Written on Chest Wins Trial Over Airport Arrest

[boston bean]

A Virginia man who wrote an abbreviated version of the Fourth Amendment on his body and stripped to his shorts at an airport security screening area won a trial Friday in his lawsuit seeking $250,000 in damages for being detained on a disorderly conduct charge.

Aaron Tobey claimed in a civil rights lawsuit (.pdf) that in 2010 he was handcuffed and held for about 90 minutes by the Transportation Security Administration at the Richmond International Airport after he began removing his clothing to display on his chest a magic-marker protest of airport security measures.

“Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated,” his chest and gut read.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/4th-amendment-chest-trial/

Good news!

[customerserviceguy]

1. Man, that Fourth Amendment

must really piss off the TSA jackboots! Glad he won, he's a true patriot.

[Th1onein]

2. Excellent! eom

[thesquanderer]

36. re: "Glad he won"

To be clear, it sounds like he won the appeal, i.e. the right to a trial in a higher court. He did not (yet) win the lawsuit.

[customerserviceguy]

63. I'm happy for each and every victory along the way. n/t

[kardonb]

79. TSA

without the TSA " jackboots " you would be a lot less safe from underwear- and shoe bombers , buddy . SAFETY FIRST !!!

[customerserviceguy]

81. Yeah

They kept both of them off the planes, didn't they? The TSA has never caught a real terrorist, but they spend an awful lot of time treating ordinary Americans like terrorists, in order to feel good about the nearly useless job they do.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” - B. Franklin.

[tavalon]

85. You're joking, right?

I mean I'm careful what I say around those jackboots but fact of the matter is, we are no more safe than we were on Sept 11th. TSA is just a happy, bloated, psuedo mafia tasks with creating a dog and pony show. It isn't required to be believable.

[RiverNoord]

87. I'm sorry but I believe that you're wrong.

Taking off your shirt in an airport in order to engage in a 4th Amendment protest is counterproductive.

Most of the people who agree with you will still agree with you, but now some will re-question their position based on the "but I'm not like that guy" problem.

Those who don't agree with you will now have their positions reinforced by the 'what a dick/looney' reaction that most of them will experience.

He seems to have a decent physique, so maybe he'll appeal to some liberal-minded young women. I don't see that as being particularly helpful to advancing the position.

We actually do have a system that still enables popular effort to change the rules. It's rigged against anyone who isn't rich, but there are still means to 'beat the house.' The thing is, the work required isn't glamorous, or flashy, or the kind of thing that gets you into newspaper headlines. It's tough, sometimes boring as hell, requires patience and persistence, and the capacity to work together.

This kind of thing just deceives people into thinking something might get done, when it's not getting done at all.

[X_Digger]

92. Right, all protests should be likable, friendly, and upbeat.

Wouldn't want to offend anyone, heaven forfend!

[RiverNoord]

99. No, if it is neccesary to..

increase the probability of achieving the change that is being promoted by the protest, then offensiveness is entirely appropriate.

The thing is, a protest is worthless (in the sense of persuading people to bring about a change of an undesirable condition) if it doesn't actually effectively promote, to some degree, the change sought.

There's no point in a protest in which the change sought hasn't been carefully considered and the protest evaluated to be a potentially effective method of promoting it. Anything else is just 'yeah, right!' and bonding with people you already agree with. Maybe the bonding is personally gratifying, but it's just being having a social experience, which is just as easy to have if you're a good organizer, and the time better spent actually developing real strategies for the hard work of actual persuasion.

The people on the status quo side are doing that, you can count on it. Which means they win if you don't do the same thing, only better.

[X_Digger]

100. It's a good thing Rosa Parks and Ezell Blair didn't share your attitude.

Milquetoast protests don't wake people up.

[RiverNoord]

107. Ok, I'm done.

Rosa Parks refused to give up a seat in the 'colored' section of a bus that she had paid for and had every right to, but was being kicked out of to make room for extra 'whites.' She didn't set out to engage in a protest, 'milquetoast' or otherwise. She reacted to an immediate injustice with an immediate act of refusal to accept the injustice.

Ezell Blair simply challenged an injustice (a segregated lunch area in a Woolworth's) by choosing to sit where someone of his ethnic background was unjustly prohibited from sitting.

Your apparent comparison of these acts to a guy taking his shirt off in an airport in a planned manner to protest TSA search procedures is... well, I'm not even going to say it.

[X_Digger]

108. I'm sure they 'offended' people. *gasp* How counterproductive! n/t

[NutmegYankee]

4. Are you freaking kidding me? Who in their right mind defends the TSA?

And to mention the McDonald's suit without the facts.

Try getting educated - http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Someone who worships Bloomberg

[beevul]

68. Exactly. N/t

[reACTIONary]

30. I do. And so do the American public...

...I wouldn't fly without a security search in place, and neither would (just about) anyone else.

As far as the fourth amendment goes, security procedures at airports do not violate it. Simple fact.

[thesquanderer]

37. The suit isn't about the security procedures at the airport.

It is about the first amendment right to peacefully make a political statement.

[reACTIONary]

89. Yes, you are correct...

...and that political statement was against the security procedures at the airport, and made the claim that they are a violation of the fourth amendment. And I disagree, the security procedures are necessary, they are prudent, and they are reasonable.

And they CERTAINLY are not violations of the fourth amendment. If they were, THAT is what the suite would be about. And as you pointed out, it wasn't.

[HiPointDem]

38. oh for god's sake. people flew quite happily without being searched before 911, and most

people would *still* fly quite happily without being searched.

i've never heard of a security search that prevented any crime except maybe the 'crime' of using shampoo.

i've heard of a lot of people who got their property confisticated and never got it back, nor any compensation for their losses, though.

[kardonb]

80. property

if said people would have informed themselves before planning a flight about restricted items to have in their luggage , those items would not have been confiscated , period . Sure , folks flew happily b4 9/11 , but that was because the previous administration ignored multiple warnings about terrorist attacks on the US . We have learned bitter lessons since then , and so the gvmt. is taking all necessary measures to inure our safety . Quit your kvetching , or drive !

[tavalon]

86. Wow, they really have you convinced

Me, on the other hand, would rather give up a little security for keeping my basic freedoms.

[reACTIONary]

91. For all practical purposes, "they" have everyone convinced...

... The public demands it and supports it. Overwhelmingly.

[tavalon]

97. I'm tired of having to live with a nation of weeny whiners

It's only a dog and pony show. We aren't safer now, just more annoyed.

[reACTIONary]

103. Get used to it...

...our concerns are valid and our safety is important to us. Calling names isn't going to convince anyone.

[tavalon]

109. If the concerns equaled more safety, I wouldn't complain

but it doesn't. TSA isn't keeping you safe, it's giving you the illusion of safety. And I'm tired of people thinking that's worth giving up my liberty for.

[reACTIONary]

112. You are entitled to your opinion...

... you might want to take a look at my OP concerning some of the illusions that the TSA has confiscated recently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022281349

[HiPointDem]

88. big brother is always correct & justified in his actions. quit bitching you are free not to fly.

the voice of authoritarianism down through history, ringing hollow, as always.

[Egalitarian Thug]

98. The same dumb that has played out time and again. Sometimes I think we are simply

incapable of learning. Harriet Tubman said it, "I freed a thousand slaves, I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves".

[reACTIONary]

90. +10 !!! (NT)

[eppur_se_muova]

55. Someone who's posted nearly 3000 times in the last 90 days ...

that's over 30/day. Individual or corporation, you decide.

[malaise]

65. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

NRA???

[idwiyo]

71. That would be someone who thinks "first they came for the rich..." is a great line to peddle on DU.

Never mind the rest of the stuff s/he wrote.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

73. First, they came for the rich

But my net worth was only $2.2 million, so I didn't speak up...

That was, hands-down, the best thread of the weekend.

[RC]

5. Are you really sure you are on the correct web site?

This is Democratic Underground, a reasonably Left leaning web site.

[WillyT]

7. Probably Turned Left, When He Meant To Turn Right...

Or... as Robin Williams once said:

Two wrongs don't make right,
but... in San Francisco,
Three rights make a left.

[graham4anything]

9. and this guy is a waste of taxpayer money

You can NOT yell fire in a theatre, and why when billions have gone through the checkout points, do the four who complained always have a camera with them and news crew?

I think they have alot better record than say Zimmerman in Florida did.

Why the hate for the TSA, a group of regular Americans who work at keeping us safe after 9-11?

I for one don't mind being searched there to feel safe and secure on the plane.

btw, in NYC we have been searched and frisked at Madison Square Garden since the mid70s.
And manhandled at the Woolman Skating rink in Central park seeing concerts there.
If one didn't want to be frisked, one didn't go.

Same with the airport. If I saw someone acting weird, sure as heck I would report it.

There has NOT been ONE incident on a plane since the shoe guy, and of course, that was on an international incoming flight anyhow.

What does one find idolizing about someone who obviously set up a situation where he would reap big money for a little inconvience?

If I were on a jury like that,(as juror #8), I would have not awarded more than ONE PENNY.

wanna bet there will be copycats.

And who pays this? The 99% do.

[Demo_Chris]

14. Why would this matter?

Just because it's a "set-up" to catch the TSA doesn't mean that the TSA does not deserve to be caught.

[leftyohiolib]

18. this is NOT yelling fire in a crowded anywhere - worst analogy ever!

there were 4 guys with cameras, everyone carries cameras now.

[Logical]

20. LOL, so the "occupy" protesters wasted money also. Are you sure you want to be a DUer? n-t

[WillyT]

25. I Can Understand Your Concerns... You Living In New York City...

"... keeping us safe after 9-11?"

But... all of our office holders pledge to DEFEND AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

And it is rumored that at some point George W. Bush said something to the effect of, "The Constitution ??? It's just a god damed piece of paper !!!"

So I take it you agree with GW Bush... right ???

And what we DO KNOW...

Is that one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin said THIS:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

And this, at the end of the Constitutional Convention of 1787...

“A lady asked Dr. Franklin... "Well Doctor, what have we got a republic or a monarchy?"

Franklin: A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

So do you disagree with Benjamin Franklin ???

And finally... Do YOU believe in the 4th Amendment... the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution ???

Or... are you just permanently frightened ???

Inquiring minds want to know.

[kestrel91316]

32. Teabagger in Aisle 4!!!

[Paulie]

33. There was the underwear bomber.

But let's not dissuade you from your talking points.

[crim son]

50. There have also been a fair number of successful attempts to bypass security.

While the current system continues to fail it is not unreasonable to be critical of it.

[Katashi_itto]

45. "You can NOT yell fire in a theatre" thats is your argument...? You need to consider Free Republic.

You'll fit right in over at Freeperville...the logic is sorely lacking there too.

[icymist]

56. "If one didn't want to be frisked, one didn't go."

What kind of response is that?!

[justice1]

62. I agree he set up the situation and is wasting taxpayer money, and so does the TSA.

[hobbit709]

64. If you believe TSA keeps us safe you are delusional.

And what's that Franklin quote about people willing to give up essential liberty?

[intheflow]

69. Peaceful, nonviolent protest is a civil right.

Not a waste of taxpayer money. Why do you hate the the First Amendment?

[nick of time]

72. This is not a waste of taxpayer money,

this is a young man who is exercising his 1A right. Why do you seem to have a problem with that? Did you also have a problem with the Occupy protesters in NY? How about when Bloomberg's storm troopers attacked them viciously?

[GoneOffShore]

84. The TSA doesn't do anything but steal stuff and make "Nervous Nellie's"

And "Kettle's" feel safer.

It's security theatre at its worst.

What has kept airline travel safe has been enforced cockpit doors and heightened passenger awareness.

Read Bruce Schneier.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. I like the old "People who spill coffee in McDonalds and then sue" trope, particularly.

Especially since that woman was given coffee probably even hotter than the melting point of the styrofoam cup it was in, at a drive thru, and the cup melted with the coffee into her lap, causing 3rd degree burns and requiring skin grafts to her groin.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://abnormaluse.com/2011/01/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-hot-coffee.html

But that didn't stop the right wing from having a grand old time hooting and hollerin' over "Yurk Durk People spillin coffee un suing mcdonalds yurk durk derp!"

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

76. Important point that many liberals need to know. And, of course, it's not just this

particular case.

[cthulu2016]

6. Win. This is the worst DU post ever!

[Gman]

12. Did you ever hear about what happens when you ASS - U - ME ?

Didn't think so.

[Melinda]

16. graham4anything's post is why reading linked articles should be required on DU

Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:45 AM - Edit history (1)

for SOME posters. If one hasn't clicked, one shouldn't post, most particularly since they haven't any idea what they're posting/talking about.

This opinion was issued based upon the defending parties (Appellents) motion to dismiss. The majority opinion was on the 1st amendment, not the 4th. Plaintiff didn't win on the merits of the partial 4th amendement clause written on his torso. Again, the issue as to the 4th was not part of the opinion, in fact, both the the 4th and 14th amendment claims were struck from the complaint at trial level.

From the U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit Opinion:

"Here, Mr. Tobey engaged in a silent, peaceful protest using the text of our Constitution—he was well within the ambit of First Amendment protections. And while it is tempting to hold that First Amendment rights should acquiesce to national security in this instance, our Forefather Benjamin Franklin warned against such a temptation by opining that those ‘who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ We take heed of his warning and are therefore unwilling to relinquish our First Amendment protections—even in an airport."

I mean really.

[leftyohiolib]

22. well that's disappointing since the 4th was stuck the unreasonable search part will probably

not get any light on it

[Melinda]

24. There was no unreasonable search. Please read the ruling. Plaintiff voluntarily stripped.

Ergo, you're right. The 4th gets (got) no play in the appeal. Furthermore, it wasn't even plaintiff who appealed... it was TSA.

[Katashi_itto]

46. +100

[Lordquinton]

57. Oooh...

"And while it is tempting to hold that First Amendment rights should acquiesce to national security in this instance"


Let's try using that with the second amendment and see how far we get.

[Logical]

19. Wow, you seem to miss the big picture a lot. Many of your posts are failures. n-t

[Logical]

21. Also, research the "like the people who spill coffee in MacDonalds" story and get back to us. n-t

[Fire Walk With Me]

8. K&R!

[xoom]

10. That's awesome!!!

Great job!

[randome]

11. How is it not disorderly conduct to strip in a public airport?

I'm not sure I get it.

[Demo_Chris]

15. Depends what he showed, doesn't it.

[eggplant]

26. It depends entirely on how you define strip.

Certainly in the photo he is sufficiently clothed -- you can't see his naughty bits. He's not even wearing a speedo.

Personally, I think he was making TSA's job easier -- certainly the pat-down would take less time, right?

[Melinda]

27. He had, on orders of TSA, complied and moved into cloaking (exam) area. It was not public.

Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:17 AM - Edit history (1)

The disorderly conduct charge was for having the 4th written on his chest. In its opinion*, the court specifically discusses this, see: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/112230.P.pdf

*Edited to add: It appears that in my haste to post, I called the Appellate Courts opinion a ruling.... My bad.

[happyslug]

40. Actually that was NOT proved at trial

This was on a Motion by the US Government to dismiss the Complaint under the concept of "qualified immunity". This is a motion filed BEFORE the start of the trial in cases where the Government believes it will win, even if the Plaintiff proves everything he claims happened actually happened. When the motion was denied as to the First Amendment (but upheld by the Trial Judge as to the 4th and 14th Amendments). the Government appealed.

On such a motion ALL FACTS ARE ASSUMED TO FAVOR OF THE NON-MOVING PARTY, in this case the Plaintiff. Thus the Trial Judge ruled that even if the Plaintiff proved EVERYTHING he claimed happened, actually happened the Plaintiff would still lose on the 4th and 14th amendment grounds. On the other hand the Trial Judge ruled that the Plaintiff MAY win on the 1st amendment ground and thus the claim based on the First Amendment survived the motion to dismiss.

This case should now be sent back to the Trial Court to hold the actually trial as to did the Security at that airport violate this person's first amendment rights AND what would be the amount of damages.

For a background on "Qualified Immunity" See:

Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal law that arises in cases brought against state officials under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 and against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights. This grant of immunity is available to state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate "clearly established law." The defense of qualified immunity was created by the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing a court's inquiry into a defendant's subjective state of mind with an inquiry into the objective reasonableness of the contested action. A government agent's liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with "malice," but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his/her actions violated clearly established law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

[Melinda]

52. Sorry, but how is this germane to my response to randome?

I don't disagree (or misunderstand) the process you discuss, however I'm not sure how it applies to my interaction with randome (disorderly conduct in a public place). I referred him to the Appellate Courts opinion wherein the "disorderly conduct" was discussed; the court laid out a nice background discussion as to the parties acts which is what I referred to - not to Appellants Motion to dismiss based on qualified-immunity.

[happyslug]

59. It has NOT been ruled if he did or did NOT commit Disorderly Conduct

The Disorderly Conduct can be a defense in ANY demand for money damages, you can NOT claim First Amendment rights IF you are otherwise causing problems. You can NOT strip and reveal what is written on your chest when stripping is NOT permitted and claim First Amendment rights when a finder of fact finds that your act is NOT one of expression but a criminal act independent of what was written on your chest.

Yes, stripping can be something covered by the First Amendment, but so can Bank Robbery if you can show the reason you robbed the bank was to show to the people how bad the bank is, as oppose to personal gain. I do NOT think any jury or Judge will find that a person who robbed a bank is protected by the First Amendment is such a situation, and the same can be said of someone stripping, a Judge or a Jury can rule the act was independent of any act of expression and thus NOT covered by the First Amendment and thus disorderly conduct that he can be arrested for and detained for.

Thus he may still LOSE his claim that his rights were interfered with. That is the point I am making, to many people on this thread is under the impression that he can now walk free and collect his money for damages. The problem is that is NOT yet the case. he may still win, but he may still lose, all the appellant court ruled that he can present his case to a Finder of Fact (a judge or Jury) and it would be up to the Finder of Fact if he wins or loses.

[Melinda]

60. I cited "opinion", not a ruling. I referred the poster to Appellants brief and justices discussion.

I'm talking apples, you're into the process of making applesauce. You seem to have an issue with "to (sic) many people on this thread is (?) under the impression that he can now walk free and collect his money for damages."

You're directing your statement to the wrong "people on this thread". The shitty headline and 4th amendment reference as well as the claim of $250,00 judgment are not mine... my focus has been on the appellate process, which has nothing to do with the trier of fact (judge/jury) at the trial level. You and I both know this opinion is based on a Motion to Dismiss, so I don't know why you insist on trying to school me on matters already within my own knowledge.

I'm happy to discuss issues with you, but process? You're talking to the wrong girl.

Have a good evening.

[indepat]

13. Chilling the extent which our government has systematically eviscerated basic rights under the 1st

and 4th Amendments all the while failing to put sensible limits on the legality of packing weapons of mass carnage on the hips, even in the wake of a rash of mass murders perpetrated when using a military-grade weapon.

[Melinda]

17. You are aware that this ruling was a win for the 1st amendment?

Right? And that the claim as to the fourth was dismissed at trial level? The headline on this one is shitty and misleading; I hope you'll read the article and ruling.

[Heather MC]

28. I know I am missing the point but please tell that man he can take his shirt off at my airport any

day of the week!!!

The TSA can pay the fine with all the loose change they collect from people, I believe I read it was well over 400K in coins

[In_The_Wind]

29. Kick

[reACTIONary]

31. The TSA is doing America a great service...

...and their security procedures are not in any way a violation of the fourth amendment.

[nvme]

42. It seems you are pissing on yourself

To heap praise on the TSA. Is there a reasonable suspicion? or probable cause? If you invasively search everyone that somehow makes it right? We are becoming a herd of cowering lemmings. We reek of fear. The terrorists win when we sacrifice our freedoms they change America. You are embracing your cowardice soil yourself because you are afraid. I will still keep grumbling until it becomes deafening and it will be the sound of the masses rising and telling all they will not hide behind the apron strings of the TSA.

[IdaBriggs]

47. I disagree with you. Nt

[aptal]

53. Exactly...

Because flying isn't a right. If you don't want to go through the procedure find another form of travel.

[customerserviceguy]

83. Then why have they never caught an actual terrorist?

The underwear bomber and the shoe bomber both managed to get aboard aircraft, it was only their ineptitude that foiled them, not some elaborate security theater.

Nobody's ever going to be able to take over a commercial aircraft in flight ever again. The cockpit crew is under absolute orders to NEVER open the door unless they hear the "safe" word. Even then, they might not if they suspect a damned thing.

[reACTIONary]

93. Yes, and the security guard...

...that sits at the desk in the lobby where I work has never caught an actual criminal! I mean, why do we have this guy sitting there, demeaning us with his suspicious looks every time we go in or out? He never caught a criminal!!! Let's get rid of him.

[customerserviceguy]

96. And when the security guard in your lobby

Stops you and checks through all your stuff, makes you walk through an X-ray machine, and every once in awhile fondles you for the sheer joy of it, then I will feel the same way about your security guard.

Face it, your security guard has enough brains to know who's safe, and who might possibly need a bit of extra scrutiny. The TSA is indiscriminate in their harassment of law-abiding citizens.

[reACTIONary]

104. I fly several times a year...

... the TSA does not engage in harassment, or fondle anyone for "the sheer joy of it" and, as I pointed out, "not having caught a terrorist" isn't a valid criticism.

X-ray machines and bag searches are reasonable measures to take for our safety.

[customerserviceguy]

110. We had reasonable security procedures pre 9/11

They kept the flood of 1960's airline hijackings to a trickle, and they were adequate to deal with most everybody. It was other failures that allowed the jihadist thugs of 9/11 to do the evil they did, such as poor security in the flight schools, etc. I'd love to see us go back to the days of reasonableness.

[reACTIONary]

111. I think the security precautions from the 1960's were reasonable...

...based on the assumption that a hijacker was interested in money or a flight to Cuba and expected to get away alive. Unfortunately, that assumption no longer holds, and it was that assumption, more than any other failure, that lead to the 9/11 tragedy.

What is and is not reasonable depends on the context. The world has changed. Personally, I don't think it would be reasonable to go back.

[Logical]

94. Lol, good one! n-t

[Orrex]

34. What's with the backwards 4? Is he some sort of Commie stooge?

[Ilsa]

39. I guess he messed up with his mirror-writing.

Looks like he got most of the rest of it right, not dyslexic.

[Orrex]

43. That's just what he wants us to think

And I think that you're in on it, Komrade.

[Dawson Leery]

35. The petty rats lost one!

[another_liberal]

41. Have they ever . . .?

Have they ever actually caught any terrorists trying to get on a commercial airliner? I mean the T.S.A. in this country, have they ever caught anyone?

[Orrex]

44. I know a guy who's been briefly detained several times

He sort of looks Mediterraneanish, and he has a beard. That must count as a TSA success story, right?

[another_liberal]

67. Wouldn't surprise me . . .

Wouldn't surprise me if 'they' count it as a success.

[Nye Bevan]

48. I have the Third Amendment tattooed on my ass.

So if soldiers ever show up at my house demanding to be quartered, all I have to do is moon them. That, and my dog humping their legs, will hopefully get rid of them.

[gasser85]

78. It's

always good to have a plan.

[Trailrider1951]

82. ROFLMAO that's the funniest thing I've heard in a long while

Thanks for the chuckle!!

[reACTIONary]

95. +10 !!! (NT)

[flamingdem]

106. I'm going to get that too

in case

[grahamhgreen]

49. Ask yourself: do you want your children to grow up in this police state

[MADem]

51. "His chest and gut read?" That young man doesn't have a gut!

I could show you a gut!

[Nye Bevan]

74. How many amendments would fit on it? (nt)

[MADem]

75. Hell, I could probably fit the Constitution on the damn thing!!! nt

[Jenoch]

54. I'm not thrilled with taking off my shoes

and belt and the security checkpoint, but this kid was being a dick. He disrobed when he was not instructed to do so. He screwed things up for the passengers trying to get through security behind him. He could have made a point about his unhappyness with the security prodecures without making an ass of himself and inconveniencing others. I don't believe the screening procedures violates the 4th Amendment. If this kid doesn't want to be searched, he doesn't have to fly commercial. Nobody is forcing him to go through the security checkpoint.

[TheKentuckian]

101. How doesn't it violate the 4th?

I keep missing the section that deals with security theater for the purpose of the illusion of safety.

[Jenoch]

102. How doesn't what violate the 4th?

If you are referring to the x-ray machines and newer scanners, the reason they do not violate the 4th is because nobody is forced to go through them against their will.

[TheBlackAdder]

58. I bet they held him long enough to miss his flight. nt

[The Straight Story]

66. If you write the 2nd on your gun and take it with you...

[idwiyo]

70. K&R Great news!

[valerief]

77. I love this guy! Good for him!!!! nt

[flamingdem]

105. DU is so proper nobody noticed

this guy is a doll! He could be the Justin Bieber of the left!

That may be irrelevant but it also may bring more attention to his cause. It's
great to see people protest, well done.

I applaud anyone who goes up against TSA, they are given way too much authority
and the xray machines are (were) capable of causing skin cancer and miscarriage.