×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

246 comments

not going to touch that (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705037)

not going to touch that

Re:not going to touch that (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705191)

...with a 6" pole

Re:not going to touch that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705371)

Hope he didn't.

Re:not going to touch that (4, Funny)

kubernet3s (1954672) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705273)

that's what they said

Re:not going to touch that (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705321)

that's what they said

What a creative and useful reply. In other news, you're a stupid nigger.

Re:not going to touch that (5, Interesting)

HermMunster (972336) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705865)

What bothers me isn't that he was acquitted, but that he asked for a jury trial, a trial by his peers, and was denied. Generally a judge rules when there's a matter of law rather than a matter of fact that has to be determined. In this case he charged with a criminal offense and he therefore required a jury trial.

Re:not going to touch that (5, Informative)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706031)

Well, if he freely admits to the action then there's no question of facts for a jury to decide, is there? The question is entirely whether or not the action was legal based on the applicable laws, which as you point out is generally accepted to be the judge's domain.

Re:not going to touch that (4, Informative)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706357)

But not always, jury's have the right to ignore law and pass whatever sentence they wish, within reason.

Re:not going to touch that (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40706385)

Not if they're never seated.

Re:not going to touch that (5, Insightful)

Fjandr (66656) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706441)

While I'm generally in agreement with what you wrote (in regard to actual practice, if not theory), two things are of note. The first is in regard to the typical application of the judge as the finder of law, while the second is in regard to the practice of entering summary judgment when there is complete agreement on both sides as to the facts of the case.

Oregon if one of the four* US States where the State Constitution specifically protects the right of a jury to find in both matters of fact and in matters of law, though this is systematically ignored and jurors informed of the opposite in jury proceedings. Specifically: In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.
You would never know that being in jury selection though, as the state jury informational pamphlet states the exact opposite. By the Constitution the judge is only allowed to instruct the jury as to how the facts they find fit within the context of the law they determine to be controlling the criminal charges, if they determine such a controlling law to exist at all.

As to the decision by the judge to enter a summary judgment via a bench trial without the agreement of the defendant, the Oregon Constitution provides but a single, crystal-clear exception to the right to a jury trial in cases where it is protected: that written application be made by the defendant and be approved by the trial judge. In capital criminal cases, this exception is specifically disclaimed; no capital crime may be subject to a bench trial under any circumstance.

*The others being Maryland, Georgia, and Indiana.

Re:not going to touch that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40706501)

You aren't entitled to a jury trial if you are only accused of petty crimes.

Awesome! (5, Insightful)

DarthBling (1733038) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705039)

This news makes me happy to live in Oregon!

And kudos to the judge for being sensible.

Re:Awesome! (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705059)

I wish I lived in Oregon. Any Oregon folk want to organize a naked day at the TSA?

Re:Awesome! (5, Insightful)

slacka (713188) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705261)

As an expat living in repressed China, this news makes me happy to be a free American. " He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin How many people do you know that have died from Terrorists? For me, NONE. But Cancer, Stupidity, Obesity, MANY. As an expat, the real threat I see to our freedom is the ignorant throwing away our freedom that our founding fathers died for, because they are scared of the terrorist buggy-man! Stop living in fear and start thinking!

Re:Awesome! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705773)

How many people do you know that have died from Terrorists?

So what you're saying is that the counter-terrorism measures are working.

Re:Awesome! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705809)

I'm not sure ol' Ben was referring to protesting by showing the world your dick, but hey, I get the sentiment!

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40706323)

It was Ben. He just might have been referring to just that.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Fjandr (66656) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706459)

As an avowed nudist (in the fashion of the times, anyway), he probably would have approved.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40706249)

As an expat living in repressed China, this news makes me happy to be a free American.

What? The only difference is the guy was acquitted by the judge. Innocent Americans still have to submit to being searched without a warrant in naked form to travel (airplanes, border routes that are 100 miles wide), and the government doesn't give a shit about the freedom the founding fathers died for - they've made the border a constitution-free zone and the TSA won't even comply with court orders around their screening process.

The only thing you can say is that you have a lesser degree of repression.

Re:Awesome! (3, Interesting)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706387)

We should all just start stripping buck naked in the airport then. Fuck it. If everybody wasn't so pussy and would man up like this guy did maybe actual change would take place. They can't incarcerate us all!

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705503)

Yup, Oregon's free speech laws are some of the best in the world.

See also Jennifer Moss [wikipedia.org]

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40706245)

whatever

The judge realised that he had nothing to hide.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705057)

53A11BA115

Irony (5, Insightful)

sixtyeight (844265) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705079)

Now that he's established that it's protected speech, everyone can do it.

We can also protest the I.R.S. by throwing our Federal Reserve Notes into a big heap and setting fire to them, but I suspect we won't.

Re:Irony (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705199)

Except you have to live in Oregon.

Re:Irony (2)

sixtyeight (844265) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705255)

Why do people keep saying that? The court in Oregon where he did it ruled that it was protected speech.

That doesn't mean it can only be protected speech in Oregon. Do it in other states, and other states' courts will rule on it too.

Re:Irony (3, Insightful)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705383)

You are almost guaranteed to be legally safe in Oregon. You are not in other states.

Re:Irony (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705401)

> Why do people keep saying that? The court in Oregon where he did it ruled that it was protected speech.

You don't understand how U.S. law works. What do you mean by "The Court"? The legal system is tiered and disperate. This was a county ruling (due to it being a local civil charge). So try to keep up. If another court were to rule differently (which is not unlikely), that ruling could be escalated to an appellate court to validate one of the decisions (either the appeal or the prior decision, effectively invalidating the other). Did you sleep through high school? You might want to get some basic understanding of what you're railing against, before promoting that little crowdfunding project.

Re:Irony (5, Informative)

makisupa (118663) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705453)

It's not so simple - Oregon's constitution grants more speech protection than our federal constitution. The fact that the finding specifically cites the Oregon rather than federal constitution seems telling to me.

Re:Irony (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706411)

No, free speech rights are just better protected in Oregon. You don't get any better than "no law" as unconditionally spelled out in the constitution. The problem is a supreme court that won't enforce it.

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705459)

Why do people keep saying that? The court in Oregon where he did it ruled that it was protected speech.

From what I understand, Oregon does not have indecency laws (or has looser indecency laws?) so stripping naked is not a problem. Other states do, and you can still suffer for "indecent exposure"

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705563)

Of course Oregon has indecency laws. What do think his trial was about?

Re:Irony (5, Informative)

DarthBling (1733038) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705487)

I can't comment about other states, but Oregon generally doesn't have a problem if you are naked.

ORS 163.465. Public indecency

(1) A person commits the crime of public indecency if while in, or in view of, a public place the person performs:
(a) An act of sexual intercourse;
(b) An act of deviate sexual intercourse; or
(c) An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person.

Combined this with section 8 from the Oregon constitution:

Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.

And you have a pretty strong case why John Brennan's naked TSA protest was not be violating the public indecency statue.

I could be mistaken, but other states may have a problem if you're naked for any reason. This might be why many people say, "Except you have to live in Oregon".

Re:Irony (3, Insightful)

LurkerXXX (667952) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706369)

I could be mistaken, but other states may have a problem if you're naked for any reason.

You are not mistaken. Many states will label you as a sex offender if you take a leak in the corner of a parking lot after a late night partying.

Re:Irony (5, Interesting)

pclminion (145572) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706191)

Why do people keep saying that? The court in Oregon where he did it ruled that it was protected speech. That doesn't mean it can only be protected speech in Oregon. Do it in other states, and other states' courts will rule on it too.

Oregon is a bit, er, different. The Supreme Court of Oregon has explicitly ruled that erotic/sexual displays are a form of protected speech. That ruling has led to Oregon's status as the strip club capital of the USA, with more strip clubs per capita than anywhere else, including Las Vegas (though most of them are in the Portland area). Portland has an annual Naked Bike Ride event. The police who follow the riders are there to protect them, not arrest them.

That's not to say some other state couldn't take the same view of things, but this decision is very typically an Oregonian decision. There is a clear distinction between lewdness and nudity, and Oregonians for the most part know how to make this distinction.

Re:Irony (1)

FiloEleven (602040) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706329)

The Supreme Court of Oregon has explicitly ruled that erotic/sexual displays are a form of protected speech.

Is this accurate? The sibling to the parent comment quotes the law in question which specifically states that public indecency is among other things,

An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person.

So it appears to me that the reason he was not convicted is precisely because his intent was not to be erotic or sexual, only nude. And that makes perfect sense given the context of the protest--he was making explicit* the fact that the scanners essentially nudify everyone, at least from the vantage point of the Viewing Room, and that the TSA is quite invasive in general. Oregon recognizes that not every naked person is necessarily being sexual, and it'd be nice if the rest of the country caught up.

*In this case, the pun happens also to be the most accurate description.

Re:Irony (1)

SlashDev (627697) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705229)

In theory your fed reserve note comment makes sense, in reality it would be impossible to implement now, not only the mass population uses those notes, the rest of the world does as well.

Now for the Federal Charges (5, Informative)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705567)

I just finished listening to an interview with this guy on "As It Happens" [www.cbc.ca] (Thursday, July 19, 2012 Episode, which today... Thursday... will still be at the top). You can look for a podcast of it on CBC Radio or I believe on PRI or NPR (but they may just point to CBC). Or listen online.

The fellow said that he was cleared of the indecency charge in Oregon since that charge was under their jurisdiction. However he still has to go through some Federal tribunal or legal process to address his disruption to the TSA people. And if he decides to dispute this, it goes to a secret tribunal and neither he nor his lawyer will be allowed to discuss the matter. So it's not all over for him.

Re:Now for the Federal Charges (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706291)

So it's not all over for him.

The TSA and secret tribunals ... you're far more optimistic than I.

free speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705085)

Am I the only one that thinks that the interpretation of free speech is overly broad? I'm no huge fan of indecency laws, but I really don't see the stripping part as having much to do about speech.

Re:free speech? (5, Insightful)

sarysa (1089739) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705113)

I consider it free speech on the following grounds: It essentially says "we know what the TSA really wants, so lets skip all the foreplay and pretense." It's like a jester mocking the king, only this king can't just add another head to his collection.

Re:free speech? (5, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705181)

No, it makes perfect sense as a political statement about an agency that wants to grope you or see your naked profile

Re:free speech? (1)

RazzleDazzle (442937) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705827)

I sense a bit of sarcasm. When discussing the TSA Freedom Fondle, you need to show more respect. Hey, you blond chick, yes, you with the big frontal lobes... care for a private "security" screening?

Re:free speech? (2)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705547)

Am I the only one that thinks that the interpretation of free speech is overly broad?

No, you're not the only one. Burning the flag is also free speech, but burning the flag in violation of fire codes doesn't magically become protected. We also have freedom of religion, but when your religion conflicts with the laws the laws take precedent.

Re:free speech? (2)

yotto (590067) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705799)

Am I the only one that thinks that the interpretation of free speech is overly broad?

No, you're not the only one. Burning the flag is also free speech, but burning the flag in violation of fire codes doesn't magically become protected. We also have freedom of religion, but when your religion conflicts with the laws the laws take precedent.

I hate to be that guy, but the laws take precedence. "Precedent" is a completely different word that happens to relate to laws, but not in the way you meant.

Re:free speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40706277)

I hate to be that guy, but the laws take precedence. "Precedent" is a completely different word that happens to relate to laws, but not in the way you meant.

I hate to be that guy, but you should have said, "I don't think that word means what you think it does."

Re:free speech? (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705619)

Speech need not be sounds coming out of your mouth. It can be in the form of the written word, signing, paintings, or interpretive dance. His speech took the form of performance art.

His intent was to communicate a message. Therefor it was speech.

the story here (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705123)

I think the real story here is that the federal government has become so corrupt and has debased our rights under the US Constitution that we're now having to use state constitutions to defend our freedoms. Many convictions have been upheld by the US Supreme Court for expressing discontent with the US government. It appears the last bastion of hope now lies with the states. I wonder how long before the first state withdraws from the Union, and a new civil war begins.

Re:the story here (2, Informative)

einstein4pres (226130) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705225)

Welcome to Cascadia [wikipedia.org]!

Re:the story here (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705833)

Just be careful that it doesn't end up a Northwest American Republic [northwestfront.org], or somesuch.

Re:the story here (1)

vux984 (928602) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706145)

Just be careful that it doesn't end up a Northwest American Republic, or somesuch.

1 in 4 British Columbians are "non-white", and the minorities aren't all illegal migrant farm workers or impoverished either. They're fairly well integrated into society, represented in government, etc. I don't know about the rest of "Cascadia" but racial supremacy isn't likely to get a strong foothold there.

Re:the story here (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706213)

If you read that website, they actually do have some hand waving around this. They don't really consider BC, and as far as American Northwest goes, they claim that most "aliens" reside in relatively compact urban conglomerations along the I-5 corridor, while east of Cascades is an all-whitey land. It's primarily the latter that they target initially, which is why their "migration guide" speaks of moving preferentially to Eastern Washington and Oregon.

Re:the story here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705247)

Many convictions have been upheld by the US Supreme Court for expressing discontent with the US government

Sources please?

Re:Ever hear of the Sedition Act of 1918 which (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705331)

made it illegal to criticize the government and only went away because it was repealed/amended?

Re:Ever hear of the Sedition Act of 1918 which (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705575)

SCOTUS upheld exactly one conviction (not "many") for that - in 1919. Subsequent rulings have established precedent that would make it nearly impossible for such a conviction to survive in the present legal environment.

Try again. And this time start by learning the difference between a source and a casual reference.

Re:the story here (1, Insightful)

FitForTheSun (2651243) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705253)

Seriously! Tim McVeigh was just "expressing discontent with the US government", and yet the courts "upheld his conviction"! THAT IS RIDICULOUS! Any time we express discontent, that is protected! Right on, brother.

Only states can protect us now. They have such a stellar track record of protecting their citizens, so that makes perfect sense. Remember back when the federal government was trying to force blacks to go to separate schools, but the states put their foot down and insisted on integration? That was a shining moment for the states. And these days, the federal government is trying to force people to follow one specific religion, but once again the states are saying NO, we won't have any of these establishment violations, we insist on protecting the rights of people to choose their own religion!

Re:the story here (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705357)

I really hope that was sarcasm.

Re:the story here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705841)

I really hope that was.

I think this made the irony more obvious then Jonathan Swift's famous work, although that's preciesely why Swift's work is so much better.

Re:the story here (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706003)

by the same nature, I could put a shell in your head then say I was expressing discontent with the Californian legislature.

Re:the story here (1)

pclminion (145572) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706223)

Removing ones clothing, and detonating a massive bomb in front of a building full of people, are equivalent acts in your mind?

Re:the story here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705393)

No, the story here isn't about the state constitution. It's protected speech under the US Constitution too, but he was in a state court charged with violation of a state law.

Re:the story here (1)

Gary Perkins (1518751) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705409)

Wouldn't surprise me at all if it begins here in Texas. I can't speak for all of Texas, of course -- it's a rather big state -- but, there are plenty of parts around here where we have a deep love of our freedoms. Many are grumbling about the slow erosion of personal freedom, and I'm waiting for the federal government to pass the wrong law or implement the wrong policy. It's bound to happen with the direction things are going.

Re:the story here (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705923)

I can't speak for all of Texas, of course -- it's a rather big state -- but, there are plenty of parts around here where we have a deep love of our freedoms.

Texas still executes retards, tries to pass off funneling tax dollars to churches as social spending, and is trying its hardest to turn the nation's science textbooks into bibles. While the average Texan may love their freedom, they don't seem to give a damn for the freedom of others.

I hope you guys secede tomorrow.

Re:the story here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705443)

Insightful? Yeah, right. IANAL, but I think girlintraining needs a primer in Constitutional Law. You can't just appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court any time you're charged with a violation of state law, and want to fight the charge using a Free Speech defense (or, for that matter, anything in the Bill of Rights). First, you have to defend yourself in state courts, and if there's something in the state constitution that gets you off the charge, then YOU WIN. There's no Federal Question and therefore nothing ever happens in the Federal Courts. Get it? So it's not that the federal government has become so corrupt blah blah blah, it's that no Federal Question was involved, and therefore neither was the U.S. Constitution.

Seriously, some folks jump at any opportunity to take cheap shots at the federal government, even when it makes absolutely no sense...

Probably not any time soon... (1)

CaptnCrud (938493) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705479)

Hyperbol much? You want to see real curruption in governments that debases rights of the populace constantly (of those with no say of course, the poor mostly)? Move to central america sometime... ...and when you pull up to a check point, I would dearly like to see the fear smattered look on your face as they haul off the driver and family in front you with zero due process, then again...due process is overrated when you have an M4A1 riffle pointed at your back and pointed at your kids. But your right, these x-ray machines and the off hand chance someone may get their jollies from your nakedness is far worse...

Re:the story here (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705615)

I think the real story here is that the federal government has become so corrupt and has debased our rights under the US Constitution that we're now having to use state constitutions to defend our freedoms.

(a) It is not the defendent's decision to be charged with a federal or state crime.
(b) A not guilty verdict on a state charge doesn't in any way protect one from a subsequent guilty verdict on a federal charge.

So, in summary (a) there is no turning to state courts and (b) even if there was, it wouldn't protect against a federal court ruling.

Re:the story here (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705767)

I think the real story here is that the federal government has become so corrupt and has debased our rights under the US Constitution that we're now having to use state constitutions to defend our freedoms.

Historically, the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments at all (that's why they all have constitutions, and why those constitutions have articles protecting freedom of speech etc). Incorporation of the Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org] only began with the 14th, and even then it was only interpreted to mean that 30 years after it came in force.

Re:the story here (1)

tomhath (637240) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705931)

The Constitution and Bill of Rights never gave you free reign to do whatever you want. You still (generally) have to obey the law. In this case the judge agreed that his right to express his views overrode the public decency law. It's always a trade-off. But if your actions take away other peoples' rights (by trespassing, blocking streets, etc.) your rights will probably come in second place to those of the people you have wronged. Don't hold your breath expecting a secession.

Movement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705165)

Maybe more people should do this? You know... for free speech reasons.

The oregon constitution protects talking penises? (0)

kotku (249450) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705173)

Yay! Well slam that in your car door and collect the change Mr Law Man!

Similar rights in WA state (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705207)

Live Free and Fly!

Seriously, though, it would be a good idea to walk thru one of the backscatter x-ray machines with lead foil that spelled out "Fvck The TSA!" ... under your shirt.

Re:Similar rights in WA state (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705275)

http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/

Re:Similar rights in WA state (1)

ozduo (2043408) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705329)

Live Free and Fly!

Seriously, though, it would be a good idea to walk thru one of the backscatter x-ray machines with lead foil that spelled out "Fvck The TSA!" ... under your shirt.

Wow so next time I go to Bali I'll see foil T shirts everywhere. What a cool idea!

Re:Similar rights in WA state (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705439)

It also has a bonus effect. The lead foil in the shirt shields the UV rays, so you'll end up with a lighter skin area that has the words, and you can wear a mesh t-shirt on the return trip from Bali and the same message will be visible to all.

Re:Similar rights in WA state (1)

v1 (525388) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705333)

I doubt that would have any effect. They are just the wheels in the machine. It's the system that's broken, and they can't really change anything even if they were motivated to try and do so.

And in most cases they're just loosely following the rules, or in a few cases, strictly enforcing them. Think carefully about which way you'd prefer them to work on the average. (hint: the latter are the cases that tend to make the headlines)

Re:Similar rights in WA state (1)

sixtyeight (844265) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705349)

...Or, you could sue the bejeezus out of the TSA and the other organizations involved and shut them down.

You know. Not to sound weird or anything.

Re:Similar rights in WA state (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705611)

reminds me of a story a guy was had to fly to a meeting somewhere for work his colleagues wanted to mess with him so they cut the silhouette of a handgun and put it in between a stack of papers in his briefcase, his missed his flight ...

was many many years ago, to day he would probably have his life ruined ...

Re:Similar rights in WA state (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705623)

Live Free and Fly!

My (limited) experience with the TSA has me believing: Live Free or Fly!

Re:Similar rights in WA state (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705815)

Live Free and Fly!

My (limited) experience with the TSA has me believing: Live Free or Fly!

That's what the Matrix wants you to believe.

No Fly List (1)

Art Challenor (2621733) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705337)

Well, we can be sure he'll either be on the "no fly list" or will never have a problem getting through security again. Sadly, I'd guess the former.

Try that in Texas (1)

ronmon (95471) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705377)

I think we would see an entirely different outcome. Pick any other Bible Belt state if you like.

Ok, so... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#40705455)

...we all know what to do, right? If we can't get them to stop with the security theater, at least we can make it as unpleasant for them as possible.

Re:Ok, so... (1)

sixtyeight (844265) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706009)

Big "if", though. Huge.

Use the courts.

Re:Ok, so... (2)

pipedwho (1174327) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706209)

Use the courts.

That's a bit like telling a homeless guy to move in to a New York City penthouse, since you'd heard the owners were having trouble finding a tenant.

Re:Ok, so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40706423)

Most likely they'll adjust by saying "Thank you" and sending you on your way. Naked.

TSA was asking for it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40705661)

Look at how they were dressed.

Question ... (1)

WankersRevenge (452399) | about a year and a half ago | (#40706251)

Does Canada have anything remotely similar to the TSA? I live somewhat near the border and the thought of watching a high school dropout paw my four year old makes me somewhat livid. And the idea of self-imposed radiation treatment is also quite unpalatable. I think I'd rather drive eight hours to Canadian airport than use the one the down the street. Is this doable?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...