TSA Groper Files Suit Against Blogger 699
An anonymous reader writes "TSA employee Theldala Magee has filed a lawsuit against a blogger demanding $500k in damages for alleging a particularly invasive search involving multiple incursions of a finger into the passenger's vagina. The passenger, who likened the feeling to being raped, is being sued for defamation for supposedly sullying the otherwise good name of a checkpoint smurf."
Theldala gonna to be gettin' PAID! (Score:2, Insightful)
No more bullshit welfare-to-work program for her.
Re:Theldala gonna to be gettin' PAID! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Theldala gonna to be gettin' PAID! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure she is hiding behind the "doing what they told me to do" defense, which is no defense at all.
Before the TSA, sexual predators could only dream of an occupation where they got to fondle people without repercussion. Thanks to our security theater, they get paid to do it!
Re:Theldala gonna to be gettin' PAID! (Score:5, Informative)
"doing what they told me to do" defense ... is no defense at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense [wikipedia.org]
Very subtle Godwin. And one that's actually on-topic ;)
Re:Theldala gonna to be gettin' PAID! (Score:4, Insightful)
I rarely mod up ACs, but damnit, if I had the points, parent post would get one.
Unless you're a gynecologist, and/or the act is consensual, that kind of behavior should damned sure be considered to be rape.
If they were that damned worries about a woman stuffing something up in there, they have enough x-ray machinery to determine for certain.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe we can simplify out 'gynecologist' from your boolean expression, because consent is not optional even if 'gynecologist' == true. Apparently current implementation substitutes variable 'TSAagent' in its place however.
Re:Theldala gonna to be gettin' PAID! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Either way, it sounds as though this won't happen. What I can't help but wonder is if the AFGE is footing the bill for the suit
Re: (Score:3)
"One Hundred Naked Citizens: One Hundred Leaked Body Scans" "U.S. Marshals in a Florida Federal courthouse saved 35,000 images on their scanner." So yes in the past "Whatever the stated policy, it's clear that it is trivial for operators to save images"
Rough Decisions (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not get fired from one, then go work for the other? Best of both worlds!
Re:Rough Decisions (Score:5, Interesting)
Although mental acuity may be a forbidding factor, a mortician may be a better career for prospective TSA employees.
My dad was a mortician (his license plates read "EMBALM" - seriously). He took great pride in his job of helping survivors through a difficult time and in making the deceased look peaceful and natural. He was a true craftsman when it came to sculpting prosthetic parts such as when a gunshot wound ruined a jaw, or cancer ate a nose. In his day, he was called in to send statesmen and business leaders to their rest.
Hmmm. That ended up a lot more serious than I intended, and he would've teased me for getting so somber about it. The guy with the "EMBALM" plates liked to laugh a lot. Still, morticians tend to be extremely professional and respectful.
Cyber stalked too (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps, then you ought not look up the legal definition then, huh? ... sexual assault with an object, or sexual fondling of a person, forcibly or against that person's will;"
"The term 'rape' means a) the
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/147/15609 [findlaw.com]
That seems to be regarding prisons, but was a quick federal search result. You may have to refer to your state for "common" circumstances but I suspect you'll find the same. Basically, any non consensual penetration of anything with anything. I believe this
Re: (Score:3)
More importantly on the computer geek side, focus on the TSA agents lawyers letter, oh my, that website is just so bad in terms of suitability for purpose. It screams narcissist ambulance chaser http://www.restmycase.com/ [restmycase.com] but, hey just in case, that is only my opinion ;D.
Reminds me of all those lame layers who will traipse their clients through the courts for years knowing full well they are going to lose but, that is also only just a opinion ;D.
Gee no bias here. (Score:2, Insightful)
"supposedly sullying the otherwise good name of a checkpoint smurf.""
Really? No wonder CmdTaco left.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gee no bias here. (Score:5, Funny)
The point is that TSA workers don't have "good names". They're unknowns, no one knows them by name. In other words, checkpoint smurfs.
That must be a bitch for the payroll department.
Re: (Score:2)
"supposedly sullying the otherwise good name of a checkpoint smurf."".
Really? You read that far? I suspected bias when I read "TSA groper". :P
Re:Gee no bias here. (Score:4, Interesting)
In fairness, one could stop reading after the first word of the headline, "TSA" to know what the article & comments will contain.
Red meat for the masses means more clicks, more pageviews, more ad impressions!
I went to Ms. Alkon's wikipedia page to find out more about her; I'm forced to roll my eyes and conclude "she's got a chip on her shoulder from moment one of any interaction."
From wikipedia:
I do not doubt that this particular TSA agent may have overstepped boundaries in this particular case. But I'm also pretty sure, reading about this self-professed behavior on Ms. Alkon's part, that she's also a drama queen just looking for some new controversy to embroil herself in, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if she was also deliberately provocative and confrontational, making the situation more tense than it needed to be, and blowing events out of proportion with histrionics.
I know the white knights here who already despise the TSA will crucify me for saying it, but millions of people fly every fucking day. Yet this shit mostly seems to happen to self-important bloggers who have a history of engaging in nasty, vicious, spiteful little "campaigns," who are so broken up by the experience that they rush home and pound out 2000 words on their blog to generate some pageviews, extra bonus when they just happen to have a videocamera handy to record all the harrassment and abuse they're subjected to.
Re: (Score:3)
But I'm also pretty sure, reading about this self-professed behavior on Ms. Alkon's part, that she's also a drama queen just looking for some new controversy to embroil herself in, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if she was also deliberately provocative and confrontational, making the situation more tense than it needed to be, and blowing events out of proportion with histrionics.
Entirely possible, although I'd wonder under what circumstances those allegations become a proportional response to anything.
Also worth noting that the TSA agent is supposed to be a trained professional. (Meaning I wonder why they're allowing themselves to *be* provoked).
I know the white knights here who already despise the TSA will crucify me for saying it, but millions of people fly every fucking day. Yet this shit mostly seems to happen to self-important bloggers who have a history of engaging in nasty, vicious, spiteful little "campaigns," who are so broken up by the experience that they rush home and pound out 2000 words on their blog to generate some pageviews, extra bonus when they just happen to have a videocamera handy to record all the harrassment and abuse they're subjected to.
Alternate theory - we don't hear about the folks who don't have blogs or cameras handy, because they don't have a voice or evidence.
We're always willing to inflate other sexual assault statistics to account for "unreported crimes" - why not
Re: (Score:3)
that she's also a drama queen just looking for some new controversy to embroil herself in, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if she was also deliberately provocative and confrontational, making the situation more tense than it needed to be
I'm sorry, that's BS. Security agents are supposed to be trained professionals. It should not be even possible to provoke them. If they can be provoked by same lame passive-aggressive behavior, then they are in the wrong profession, and need to be fired. Why do we hav
Re: (Score:3)
If you "provoked" an Israeli security officer, you wouldn't get a finger up the vagina, you'd have an assault rifle in your ear.
No, that depends on the level of the provocation. Whatever silliness this woman did would have simply been ignored by the Israelis, because they're professionals, not just incompetent goons like the TSA. The only way you'd get a rifle pointed at you is if you do something that shows you to be a threat. Being a whiny or mouthy woman isn't going to earn that response from professi
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Alkon [wikipedia.org]
She always carries four days' supply of salami with her, in case someone serves her some pasta, which she does not eat.
My. Oh my. Can I invoke Rule 34 on this one?
Re: (Score:2)
Thirded.
Checkpoint Smurf? (Score:4, Funny)
I dunno... giving the TSA goons a name like "smurf" certainly doesn't give a hint as to their sinister side... Of course one is a little, invasive, annoyingly-voiced bastard that won't just go away, and the other is a smurf.
Perhaps we should call them "checkpoint trolls" or "checkpoint pervs"?
Re:Checkpoint Smurf? (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously, you've forgotten Rapey Smurf.
Is this suit actually filed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is this suit actually filed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ultimately, if it reaches court, it's not going to go well for the TSA employee. There's just been too much publicity of coercive practices for her to claim that there was any meaningful consent. Beyond that, just having to give up the fee you paid for the tickets and accommodations is sufficient to question how consensual it really is when you don't get any of that money back if you refuse to be sexually assaulted.
I'm sure that the defendant will have little to no trouble finding witnesses to support the claim of sexual assault if not rape. And tons to attest to the coercion at the check points.
What's worse, is that the TSA agents aren't law enforcement and lack the legal authority to conduct the searches in the first place.
Re:Is this suit actually filed? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just that you don't get your money back, once you enter the checkpoint, you have continue all the way through or get hit with a massive fine. Totally not consensual...
This Article is Borderline Defamation (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, so this is it? This is the point where Slashdot isn't afraid to show its radical bias in blatant bold-faced type on the front page?
You pepper the TSA agent with derogatory remarks ("Checkpoint smurf", "Groper") based on allegations filed in a lawsuit? Do any of you ever look at a murder trial and immediately go "Oh, hey, look at that MURDERER on trial. They're on trial, so they must have killed someone." This crowd froths at the mouth when anyone in government is accused of doing something wrong, but they're the first to stand up and yell "innocent until proven guilty" when someone they can relate to is in the spotlight for something. You're all pathetic. Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt pathetic.
Now I understand why CmdrTaco left. I'd abandon my life's work, too, if this is what it turned in to.
Re:This Article is Borderline Defamation (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because enough of us have been patted down by the TSA to know it's all-too-plausible.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Agreed. I personally haven't flown for vacation in several years(I'd rather drive or take the train, depending on availability), but trips for business are often unavoidable, and I imagine many /.'ers are in the same boat.
It's likely many readers here are personally familiar with how likely this sort of situation is. Even a legitimate screening from a TSA worker who's just doing their job and doesn't even want to be groping you feels like sexual assault, and could probably be described that way without fe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just after 2001, I flew quite a bit for work, but the last time was in 2004, as the travel requirement on that job ended. After seeing/hearing all of the horror stories about TSA and their peversions, I absolutely refuse to fly anymore. To put it in context, I was out of work, I applied for a position which on the job description said nothing about any travel involved. During the interview it became clear that this position involved about 50% travel. I told the interviewer "thanks but no thanks". He in turn
Re: (Score:3)
Several, on both counts, but that has nothing to do with this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been patted down by the TSA. It was nothing like this. I'm not saying this woman is lying. Perhaps this particular agent was incompetent, anal retentive about being "sure", or really was a perv; I don't know. I do know that if the pat down is done right, it's annoying at worst. I'm not saying the situation is right in the first place, but I am saying that either the TSA employee was violating procedure or this woman is incredibly over sensitive. What she says happened should be impossible if the
Re: (Score:3)
Is the TSA agent to blame for all of this, no.
The principle that a person is individually responsible for serious crimes committed under orders is well established.
Re: (Score:3)
It may not be DEFINED by the U.S. government as a crime, but it's still a crime. The state of Texas has seriously considered defying the federal government and re-asserting that the TSA procedures ARE a crime in spite of intense pressure to back down.
Nothing Saddam did in Iraq was a "crime" in the sense that he made the laws and he said it was all fine. That didn't make it true and it didn't save him.
Re: (Score:3)
This. I think the burden of proof here is on the complaintent. It is possible, but the way she described it - pushing on her labia hard multiple times - is likely to get the attention of supervisors (and everyone else in the area).
And as many people have pointed out, the whole procedure is dumb, annoying but hardly sexually charged. If you're that cranked about your nether parts, either stay home or get professional help.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nah. If you kill somebody you get the benefit of the doubt. Because really who here hasn't taken the passenger seat out of their car full of blood and homicide books?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much my immediate thoughts. The claims by the blogger are pretty severe for this agent to just let slide if it's true. And if it's not - well hopefully we'll find out in the court of law. I get that we all don't like the TSA but at the end of the day they're all humans too. Eye for an eye isn't justice in my book - especially when you're just firing wildly into crowds of potentially innocent people.
TSA or not - why should this person allow someone to make such statements if they were blatantly false?
Re: (Score:2)
It might be because a lot of us travel and have experienced something similar from the TSA ourselves, but are too scared to do anything about it. When somebody finally does stand up for themselves, it's hard not to cheer for them and vent a little at the TSA's expense.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to be modded into hell for this, but oh well, my excellent karma can take it.
Wow, so this is it? This is the point where Slashdot isn't afraid to show its radical bias in blatant bold-faced type on the front page?
You pepper the TSA agent with derogatory remarks ("Checkpoint smurf", "Groper") based on allegations filed in a lawsuit? Do any of you ever look at a murder trial and immediately go "Oh, hey, look at that MURDERER on trial. They're on trial, so they must have killed someone." This crowd froths at the mouth when anyone in government is accused of doing something wrong, but they're the first to stand up and yell "innocent until proven guilty" when someone they can relate to is in the spotlight for something. You're all pathetic. Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt pathetic.
Now I understand why CmdrTaco left. I'd abandon my life's work, too, if this is what it turned in to.
The issue is as I see it, the agent doesn't deny what happened, they are suing because the rapist label was applied.
Maybe I read it wrong, but based on the accusation, that label appears to be fitting.
Re: (Score:3)
At least they weren't labeled a file sharer...then they would be facing serious jail time ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I would understand those remarks if they were in an over-the-top parody, but they are really out of place here.
Also, don't worry about your karma. It's proven that saying you'll be modded down actually causes people to mod you up.
Re: (Score:3)
Do an article search with "Patent", "Microsoft", "Linux", or basically just scroll down the page.
Every single article on Slashdot shows its radical bias. Its just most of the time the radical bias is the one the readers are here to see. Slashdot hasn't been a discussion forum for people with nerd tendencies since the whole VA Linux thing happened. Most of the readers on here weren't around back then, but the whole site went to shit when that happened. Ad revenue, driven by extremely biased coverage became t
Re: (Score:3)
The TSA is the epitome of evil in modern society.
Talk about a Drama Queen. If the TSA is the worst thing you've come across in your life your either lucky or not particularly observant. I think the TSA is stupid, overbearing, illegal in many respects and useless, but I can think of a lot more evil things even before coffee.
Change We Can Believe In (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Change We Can Believe In (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorist, authorities, what's the difference in the end?
I've actually seen authorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have no choice, it's forced on us by neocons and liberals alike. There are very few of us who believe in individual liberty, an important part of which is freedom of travel within our own country and not allowing arbitrary warrantless searches, much less arbitrary warrantless cavity searches. Personally I vote for those who oppose violation of my rights, and I refuse to fly anymore, driving is just fine.
UFIV == Rape? Yes! (Score:2)
If an UFIA is rape, then an UFIV is rape as well. Plus, it's not like she only got UFIV'd once.
Re: (Score:2)
An unsolicited finger in the anus, while crude, is not criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
While a solicited one will cost you extra.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone else see the horrible irony in that statement?
</sad>
Is this summary necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)
We're all in agreement that the TSA security measures are stupid, inefficient, unlikely to actually stop any actual threats, and invasive to our privacy. TSA policy resembles a large scale version of the Milgram experiments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment [wikipedia.org]/
This doesn't mean that TSA employees are not people to. They have lives, they have names. They have friends and families. Sure, TSA employees are often incompetent and stupid. The TSA could try to hire retired police and retired MPs but they seem to out of their way not to. But, the low level employees are not deciding policy. They have the same rights as everyone else not be defamed and libeled if they didn't actually do something. So when one of them exercises their legal rights mocking and insulting them is uncalled for. They are just doing their jobs. In the current economy there aren't many jobs out there and the TSA employees want to get paid and not starve like everyone else. You might be smart and well-educated and have a steady job. Good for you. Now meet everyone else.
And since someone is going to probably twist "they are just doing their jobs" into some ridiculous example of Godwin's Law, let's be clear: this is not the same thing as the Nuremberg defense. "I was just doing my job and following orders" has a very different meaning when one is being told to murder people than when someone is being told to do something to someone who knew what they were getting into and elected to go flying anyways.
Instead of insulting and labeling individual TSA people, try to fix the actual issues, a general culture of fear and a succession of US Presidents who have minimal respect for the Constitution.
Of course if the TSA person did do what the blogger claimed (which wouldn't be that surprising) then the TSA person should be fired and does deserve to have their name plastered everywhere. But let's not rush to judgment ok?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it is necessary. The world decided some time ago that "I was only following orders" does not comprise a valid defense. Your attempt to derail by Godwinning this argument does not mean that the argument is not valid. People who support a corrupt government by doing bad things are bad because they did bad things, not because they supported a corrupt government. All TSA employees that have gate raped people should be charged with harassment and other crimes. They knew what they were doing was wrong a
Re:Is this summary necessary? (Score:4, Insightful)
"I was just doing my job and following orders" has a very different meaning when one is being told to murder people than when someone is being told to do something to someone who knew what they were getting into and elected to go flying anyways.
Oh really? The woman who was groped knew a TSA agent would insert part of her hand into the woman's vagina multiple times? Somehow I doubt that.
Also, to totally Godwin this discussion: Should Jews have publicly renounced/defamed their faith because they "knew what they were getting into" by continuing to be Jewish in the face of the Nazi takeover of Germany?
Re: (Score:3)
This doesn't mean that TSA employees are not people to. They have lives, they have names. They have friends and families
Friends and families who ought to know what they do in their day job. Social blackballing is about the only effective method (short of summary execution) of deterring someone from doing something which is morally reprehensible but legal. If UK landlords can bar traffic wardens from drinking in their pubs, then people who feel they've been mis-treated by TSA agents can publicise who they are & what they did.
If you would find it awkward for your friends & family to know what you actually do at work, y
Re: (Score:3)
Eunuchs.
"checkpoint smurf?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
From reading TFA (yeah, I know), it's not so much that she was lying so much as that she used some very loaded language to describe it. The woman was fully dressed, but the full-on crotch prod caught her "between the labia", several times.
It's hard to imagine that the finger got so far as to be "in the vagina", though clearly that's drawing some very fine distinctions. She certainly felt violated.
I don't know precisely how TSA agents prod women, but I could see it getting into the camel toe. That would b
Re: (Score:3)
The question isn't about whether she was lying. Nobody is contesting what the blogger has claimed to have happened. The question is about whether or not it's justifiable to call what happened "rape", and whether or not the right to call it that (even if it's hyperbole) is protected under the First Amendment.
Seems pretty blatant (Score:2)
While rape is probably too strong a word to use here from an objective standpoint, someone describing it that way in a blog is fully justified. This lawsuit is ridiculous, and will only accomplish a Streisand effect against Thedala Magee and the TSA as a whole.
Re: (Score:3)
While rape is probably too strong a word to use here from an objective standpoint
Easy test - go up to the next woman you see, and try to do what's alleged.
If it's assault on the street, it's assault in the checkpoint.
Rape requires intention (Score:2, Informative)
Nevertheless, I wish people would stop demeaning the experiences of actual rape victims by throwing out the word for every possible unpleasant physical experience involving the groin or breasts. It only makes the kind of people who dismiss the seriousness of sexual assault in the first place that much more insulated from the gravity of rea
Re:Rape requires intention (Score:4)
Sticking a finger inside a woman's vagina multiple times doesn't sound like simply an unpleasant search. It sounds like a sexual assault. If there was suspicion that she was carrying banned implements inside her vagina, then an appropriate cavity search should have been done.
Is it rape? No, I wouldn't say. But I would say it was a sexual assault and if the TSA officer did it, she should be fired. Nowhere have I heard that sticking fingers inside vaginas is permitted under security search rules, have you?
Re:Rape requires intention (Score:5, Interesting)
Four times. Back right and left, and front right and left. In my vagina. Between my labia. I was shocked -- utterly unprepared for how she got the side of her hand up there. It was government-sanctioned sexual assault.
Right before that paragraph was this
Basically, I felt it important to make a spectacle of what they are doing to us, to make it uncomfortable for them to violate us and our rights, so I let the tears come. In fact, I sobbed my guts out. Loudly. Very loudly. The entire time the woman was searching me.
Sounds like a sensationalist blogger to me. I'm not saying she wasn't violated. But I don't give her much credibility for her over-dramatic scene
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if you RTFA, you'll see that their reply argued that the TSA agent was most certainly acting with intent (as a retaliation for opting-out of the full body scan). They argue that the TSA agent's finger penetrated the traveller four times. Their defense is that this does fit the legal definition of rape and truth is an absolute defense against libel.
Additionally, they argue that even if it were not rape, the first amendment provides protection against hyperbole.
Coincidence (Score:2)
Is it any coincidence that the victim in this case happens to be a columnist and a blogger? I call BS on this, but she'll win no matter what because she'll get the ad revenue, book sales and speaking engagements.
rapists suing their captors! (Score:2)
We need a new level of meta responses to this sort of post. Around 2007 the last person online became a cynic and mastered sarcasm. We need a third declension of retort that is new and beautiful. I've gotten so tired of our homotextual replies.
Exactly the Right Move (Score:3)
By filing suit Theldala Magee made exactly the right move, for me to poop on.
Theldala Magee meet Barbara Streisand.
Here we go! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah. See the Government only gets to do things which demonstrably secure the aircraft from dangerous weapons.
This mandate is fulfilled by the magnetometers and x-raying of handheld luggage. The body scanners and strip-searches have not been shown to provide any more security than that, and therefore are unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of us refuse the body scanner by not flying. And ultimately, most people don't have the money to pay the ridiculous fines for refusing.
Then there's the fact that they force people to get sexually assaulted if they decline the body scanners. It's been well documented that the TSA will threaten criminal charges and refuse to let you leave if you turn down the blatantly unconstitutional searches.
If it does not fit... (Score:3)
FTA:...stuck the side of her gloved hand INTO my vagina
In the trial, will TSA smurf have to try "it" on for size like OJ?
irrelevancies (Score:2)
A few observations:
The only animal life presented in the few photos returned from a Google image search [google.com] for TSA employee "Theldala Magee" is captioned "Slug on Cabbage [google.com]."
Is being a rapist a disability? Will the EEOC protect Ms. Magee's right to rape airline passengers as it protects the rights [eeoc.gov] of alcoholic commercial truck drivers to drive trucks?
Re: (Score:2)
Agree, you couldn't pay me to go there!
Actually you could, but it would be a lot of $$$
Re: (Score:2)
Agree, you couldn't pay me to go there! Actually you could, but it would be a lot of a$$$
'There' being Amy Alkon or the U.S.?
If I ever take my family overseas (Score:5, Interesting)
I am driving to Canada and catching a flight from there. Within the country, I'm driving.
I have daughters, and I don't think I'll be able to sit by and watch while they're sexually assaulted. Daddy would be going to jail.
Re:If I ever take my family overseas (Score:5, Informative)
It seems its easy to tell (Score:3)
Who has kids and who doesn't. Your creative turn of phrase definitely shows.
I had no idea I could ever be this protective. Touch my girl, you die. Simple, isn't it?
I'm going to need to learn to tone it down a bit before they start dating. Other parents may not like their sons threatened with a 12-gauge when they haven't even done anything.
Re: (Score:3)
But as a father myself, I am in complete agreement.
Re: (Score:3)
Who has kids and who doesn't. Your creative turn of phrase definitely shows.
I had no idea I could ever be this protective. Touch my girl, you die. Simple, isn't it?
Uh, I'm childless, but the hypothetical thought of a hypothetical child being hypothetically diddled by a hypothetical TSA bastard (or anyone) puts me in a hypothetical killing mood.
I know damn well there would be nothing hypothetical about this feeling if my child wasn't hypothetical too.
I'm more confused by those who think it'd be no big deal. What's wrong with you?
Anybody touching (Score:4, Informative)
her private parts without explicit consent and complete freedom to decline without repraisal is sexual assault.
And that person will be physically injured by me unless he or she is lucky enough to have the cops get there first.
You are unduly uptight (Score:4, Informative)
Comment goes elsewhere, subject goes here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a shame that we had to figure out that you started your comment in the subject, because most of us move on if your post doesn't make sense right away. The first half of the sentence in the title does just that.
If you don't like the "Re:" feel free to change the subject of your post. If you want us to care what you are saying then don't place part of the comment there.
I'm guessing your the same type of person who doesn't follow naming conventions.
Re: (Score:3)
That's no fun position to be in. Like any other thing, this is a case of a few bad apples. I'm not going to comment one way or another on the effectiveness of the measures, as that's really the responsibility of the people at the top. The people in the airports are just parts of the machine like the rest of us.
Now, that said, the bad apples do deserve a good 'beating' - but we should try to limit this to the true abusers.
Re: (Score:3)
Your comment shows you don't understand parenthood, or just how far a father would go to protect his daughter.
Trust me, if a TSA assclown put his hands on my little girl, they're going to have to just arrest me. One reason I won't travel by plane with my kids until this security theater delusion has worn off.
And I guess if the airlines don't want even more people to abandon their shitty, scary service, they might take a moment to re-assess their business models. I REFUSE TO FLY in the Continental US at th
Re: (Score:3)
Your comment shows you don't understand the meaning of the words "sexual assault".
I don't know about GPP, but personally, I really couldn't care less about the legal definition. If a government employee (TSA? check...) uses power or intimidation (can't opt out of the search if it becomes too intrusive? [consumertraveler.com] check...) to touch someone else's genitals (see TFA), it is a sexual assault, and I will use whatever force necessary, including violence if necessary in my sole discretion, against TSO's to protect myself and my family from sexual assault, PERIOD.
Except for that federal law thing (Score:3)
I have a feeling they don't take kindly to killing TSA agents.
Plus they've probably legally defined TSA sexual assault as not sexual assault.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:USA (Score:5, Funny)
You should probably never come. You might never get out.
Re:USA (Score:5, Informative)
It's posts like this that should show you that Europeans are just as enlightened or ignorant as Americans.
Do you really think that is the average person's experience at the airport? Do you really think Americans are nuts?
Seriously, you think the US is some crazy place?
I was born in Africa, have a very Muslim name, live in Canada now, and have been to the US dozens of times. Sometimes for work. Sometimes for play.
You know what US border/airport security is like? It's pretty routine... apart from the whole taking off my shoes thing. But the personnel are pretty normal. No different than I've experienced in the UK or Holland.
During my last trip for work in Florida, I left my shaving cream and toothpaste in my carry-on bag by accident. Normally I throw it all out. It got flagged in the scanners. The guy called his supervisor. They had me step aside, emptied the bag... found out it was shaving cream, cracked a joke... threw out my shaving cream, and I was on my way. Pretty regular behavior.
I'm sure some people have had bad experiences. But people have had bad experiences in the UK, Canada, France... too. The US just isn't that nutty.
Re:USA (Score:4, Insightful)
threw out my shaving cream, and I was on my way
See, that's just pure evil. If they really believed that was an explosive, would they let you board the plane after YOU TRIED TO SNEAK AN EXPLOSIVE ON BOARD? No, they'd ship your ass to Guantanamo bay or another "enhanced interrogation" facility in a place where your rights don't apply. Since they let you board the plane, they knew perfectly well you were harmless, and yet they decided to steal your stuff because they're evil, fascist thugs.
Re: (Score:3)
You're absolutely right that people have bad experiences everywhere. But when I fly in Canada, if someone decides to grope my daughter, I have a much higher degree of confidence that actions would taken. (Sadly, I'm not certain of that because we're moving to the "Hide the evidence and deny everything" model of policing up here).
In the US, though, I have zero confidence that anything would happen, and severe concerns that if I did anything but smile and tell my daughter it's OK for the man to touch her in t
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, the ignorance you display makes me thankful you will not be visiting. Please, stay where you are, I'm sure they will appreciate your contributions!
Good advice. I have avoided travel to the US since 9/11. That place scares me silly.
Re: (Score:2)
I likened drinking that coffee to being poisoned. That's not OK
Oh yes it is [california...awblog.com]. They actually post Prop 65 warnings in coffee shops now.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, in the US, under the Supreme Court's free speech jurisprudence which restricts the actions for defamation, in a suit by a public official, falsity is a necessary element of the prima facie case for defamation rather than truth being a defense. So if the suit doesn't explicitly allege that the claims were false, the defendant ought to seek to have the case thrown out for failure to state a valid cause of action.