Man Who Protested TSA By Stripping Is Acquitted By Judge 246
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:not going to touch that (Score:5, Interesting)
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:the story here (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Awesome! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:free speech? (Score:4, Interesting)
First, indecency standards can certainly still have meaning, because indecency is invariably derived from intent.
When it comes to somebody's boobs or genitalia hanging out, the intent really doesn't matter. Whether you're performing a naked art show in the park or protesting, it's the kind of thing society has decided that they don't want to be confronted with in public.
If it truly meant what you claim it to mean, the very act of mentioning religion specifically would be utterly redundant.
No, it wouldn't. That same argument was made for all the Bill of Rights, but the Founders eventually decided that it was best to be explicit in highlighting the most common and important rights that are trampled on. Reference [umkc.edu].
As the case law surrounding the Amish clearly shows, this is not, and never has been, the case in US jurisprudence.
I'm not sure what law you are referring to, but US case law is a checkerboard of inconsistent and unprincipled rulings. Name a principle of law, and I'm sure I can find two inconsistent interpretations of it.
And regardless of what the courts say, I'm talking about what should be the case based on what the Constitution says. The Constitution has been stretched and abused beyond recognition in many aspects (like the Commerce Clause).