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."
not going to touch that (Score:5, Funny)
not going to touch that
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:not going to touch that (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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:not going to touch that (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
But not always, jury's have the right to ignore law and pass whatever sentence they wish, within reason.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if they're never seated.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn it, you two aliterates
Please correct correctly.
Re:not going to touch that (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Ah, I wasn't aware of that, I'm glad to hear such places exist, even if the bureaucracy predictably tries to deny it. In that case I suppose the judge's refusal would give him solid grounds for an appeal, if for some reason he wished do so. Considering the verdict though it seems quite possible that the judge had already decided the verdict was clear-cut and that seating a jury would simply waste a lot of people's time without any possible benefit.
Re:not going to touch that (Score:5, Funny)
Re:not going to touch that (Score:4, Insightful)
This article gives more information:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/07/post_247.html [oregonlive.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:not going to touch that (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Mod up! I would be interested in learning too.
Re:not going to touch that (Score:5, Informative)
This article gives more information:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/07/post_247.html [oregonlive.com] [oregonlive.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
And kudos to the judge for being sensible.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
I wish I lived in Oregon. Any Oregon folk want to organize a naked day at the TSA?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
I'll bring the cool hwip.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you, Stewie.
Re: (Score:2)
With all the backscatter X-rays, they'll all be able to get a nice indoor tan too.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.oregoncountryfair.org/photo_gallery.php [oregoncountryfair.org]
(There's no nudity in those galleries, but trust me there was plenty of nudity there. I love Oregon!)
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Lisa, I would like to buy your rock...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure ol' Ben was referring to protesting by showing the world your dick, but hey, I get the sentiment!
Re: (Score:2)
As an avowed nudist (in the fashion of the times, anyway), he probably would have approved.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure ol' Ben was referring to protesting by showing the world your dick, but hey, I get the sentiment!
I'd bet Franklin would agree with me — the most distressing instances of publicly showcased dicks here are the blue-shirted ones DHS/TSA stick in peoples' faces.
Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
maybe actual change would take place.
Yeah, soon the TSA would require that all passengers strip naked before entering the terminal area.
Though, now that I think about it that would probably save a lot of money on machines and training, while speeding up the security search process; let's do this!
Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Irony (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Good thing that everyone agrees on the meaning and interpretation of every word in the Constitution. I wonder why we even bother having a Supreme Court?
Re:Irony (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
if you take a leak in the corner of a parking lot after a late night partying
Don't worry LurkerXXX, we believe you.
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: (Score:2)
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 invasiv
Re:Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Portland has an annual Naked Bike Ride event
Note to self: Don't buy a used bike in Portland.
Re:Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Portland has an annual Naked Bike Ride event. The police who follow the riders are there to protect them, not arrest them."
No, the police just go to have the best spot! That's why everybody call them 'pigs'!
Re: (Score:2)
And of course it gets even more complex, since the Oregon ruling was regarding Oregon law. Rulings in other states, even if they got to the State appellate level, would not affect it. Neither, in all likelihood, would any ruling in a Federal Appellate court as it's unlikely that a case could come about regarding these issues that would bring about a Federal/State contest under the Supremacy Clause (for too many and complex reasons to be worth attempting to list).
Re: (Score:2)
Now for the Federal Charges (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
So it's not all over for him.
The TSA and secret tribunals ... you're far more optimistic than I.
Re:Now for the Federal Charges (Score:5, Funny)
Protesting, hmmmm... (Score:2)
the story here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Welcome to Cascadia [wikipedia.org]!
Re: (Score:2)
I have my Free Cascadia bumper sticker [zapatopi.net] and my Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs t-shirt. [zapatopi.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Just be careful that it doesn't end up a Northwest American Republic [northwestfront.org], or somesuch.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If anyone thinks Eastern Cascadia is "all-whitey" land, they've never been here or they lump Hispanics in as "all-white." Maybe Hispanics are now "white enough" for the race-baiters.
Unfortunately, there is still a small Aryan contingent alive and well in North Idaho, so perhaps they are under the mistaken impression they can grow that into what it once was. That site sounds like an attempt to make their movement more palatable to people who would otherwise, at best, ignore them.
As for me, I'd love to see th
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't express discontent. He committed mass murder.
True. But how about the children who were forced to view this man? They're scarred for life!
We have to nip this in the bud or we'll have perverts at the airport exposing themselves and claiming "free speech."
Re: (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.
Similar rights in WA state (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
...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: (Score:2)
Live Free and Fly!
My (limited) experience with the TSA has me believing: Live Free or Fly!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Try that in Texas (Score:2)
I think we would see an entirely different outcome. Pick any other Bible Belt state if you like.
Ok, so... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Big "if", though. Huge.
Use the courts.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Wouldn't bother me overmuch, but might bother the people who had to look at me.
Question ... (Score:2)
ridiculous (Score:2)
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
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)
So is he free to travel ... (Score:3)
Re:free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not half as indecent as what the TSA does.
Re:free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Thanks for the correction.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is one is a violation of incredibly subjective standards while the example of flag burning can, in some cases, cause a very real and articulable risk to life, health, and/or property. When judged against subjective standards, the standard of proof should be very high to find someone guilty of indecent behavior over a political expression of extreme displeasure which posed zero risk to anyone at any time.
As for religion, even though I am a-religious, I thoroughly believe that restrictions on r
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is one is a violation of incredibly subjective standards while the example of flag burning can, in some cases, cause a very real and articulable risk to life, health, and/or property.
I agree indecency standards are subjective, but if they are to have any meaning you can't just let people parade around naked in public as a form of protest.
As for religion, even though I am a-religious, I thoroughly believe that restrictions on religious activity should be limited strictly to cases where there is very real and articulable risk to life, health, and/or property.
Religious activity should be given no more, and no less, consideration than any other activity under the law. Doing otherwise violates the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Re: (Score:3)
First, indecency standards can certainly still have meaning, because indecency is invariably derived from intent. Actually, much of the criminal law in the USA hinges on intent.
As to religious activity being given exactly the same consideration to any other activity under the law, I believe you have misread both the letter and the intent of that amendment. If it truly meant what you claim it to mean, the very act of mentioning religion specifically would be utterly redundant. A complete lack of mention woul
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If he was stripping naked to protest high gasoline prices or the war in wherever, I'd agree. But here, the stripping naked part was an essential part of the statement.
Re:free speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The legal definition of a word may differ considerably from the dictionary definition. The word "speech" is an example of that. The dictionary attempts to capture the common intended meaning when someone says the word, while the legal definition begins there (more specifically, with the dictionary definition at the time the law was written) and adds to it years of judicial presidents.
In law, speech is any sort of communication. The term isn't actually legally ambiguous at all. That's why the judge was able