Man Who Protested TSA By Stripping Is Acquitted By Judge

AbrasiveCat writes "In an update to an earlier Slashdot story, the Portland Oregon man who was arrested after stripping naked at a TSA checkpoint at Portland Airport was acquitted of indecent exposure charges. He successfully argued that he was protesting TSA actions, and his actions were protected speech under the Oregon Constitution."

Re:the story here

[einstein4pres]

Welcome to Cascadia [wikipedia.org]!

Re:Irony

[makisupa]

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

[DarthBling]

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".

Now for the Federal Charges

[theshowmecanuck]

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:not going to touch that

[Immerman]

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

[wisnoskij]

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

[Holi]

While the supreme court may agree with you I fail to see how they reached that verdict.

6th Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law

Article 3, Section 2
Article III, Section 2, provides that crimes, except impeachment cases, must be tried before a jury, unless the defendant waives his or her right. The trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress.

Can someone explain to me where this 6 month imprisonment waiver comes from. I can't see a lot of wiggle room in there.

Many states still require jury trials for all crimes, but I can't find a list.

Re:not going to touch that

[brentrad]

Because the prosecution dropped its case to a violation, not a crime. It's not that he was denied a jury trial. "Brennan didn't have the option of letting a jury decide the case because the prosecution dropped its pursuit of a conviction for misdemeanor public indecency. The prosecution is now seeking a conviction for a violation, which is similar to a speeding ticket." Violations don't have the option for a jury trial in Oregon.

This article gives more information:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/07/post_247.html [oregonlive.com] [oregonlive.com]

Re:ridiculous

[chrismcb]

So anyone with a point can strip naked as long as it's related? Anti-sheep wool use as clothing? Nude time! Completely ridiculous.

Why do you consider it ridiculous? It is a form of protest, and has been used through out time, remember Lady Godiva? PETA does this from time to time. Free Speech means more than just spoken or written words.
Not to mention the fact, it is NOT illegal to be naked in public in Oregon (or many states for that matter)