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."

Awesome!

[DarthBling]

This news makes me happy to live in Oregon!

And kudos to the judge for being sensible.

Irony

[sixtyeight]

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:free speech?

[sarysa]

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.

the story here

[girlintraining]

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:free speech?

[zwede]

Not half as indecent as what the TSA does.

Re:free speech?

[king neckbeard]

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

Re:the story here

[FitForTheSun]

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:Awesome!

[slacka]

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:Irony

[Githaron]

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

Re:Irony

[LurkerXXX]

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:not going to touch that

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if they're never seated.

Re:not going to touch that

[Fjandr]

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:Awesome!

[jyx]

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!

No, but the can totally destroy the lives of the first few thousand or so. Remember, this guy still has to go through the 'secret' federal trials - who know what the hell is going to happen there.. (Secret trials - I cant believe we have got to this stage!)

So while a good portion of the population sees the TSA as an annoying but necessary, getting past that couple of thousand people required mark will be tricky.

Re:not going to touch that

[brentrad]

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]

Re:free speech?

[BeanThere]

You're confused. You're conflating two issues. Burning the flag in violation of fire codes is still free speech and protected as such. However, it may also violate fire codes if done dangerously. It's NOT that burning a flag in violation of fire codes somehow literally "becomes speech that is actually allowed to be censored". It remains that nobody has the right to censor your free speech in any circumstance - they could not prosecute the *speech* component of the flag-burning - but people do have the right to not be placed at a risk of being harmed by your burning things in dangerous ways. But if they prosecute you, it won't be for "speech" - it will be for endangering them. To claim that this literally means that freedom of speech "has its limits" is disingenuous.