A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed most of the constitutional claims raised by a Charlottesville man who was arrested after stripping down to his running shorts during an airport checkpoint protest…
False imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims against three Richmond International Airport police officers were not included in the motions for dismissal.
Aaron Tobey, 21, was detained at an airport security checkpoint on Dec. 30 after partially disrobing to display part of the text of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment handwritten on his chest. Tobey says he was protesting security measures, including enhanced pat-downs and the use of whole-body imaging scanners that he believes violate the Constitution’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
…Judge Henry E. Hudson also rejected the equal protection and search-and-seizure claims against the TSA screening officers who summoned police, but said it was premature to dismiss the free-speech claim…
Tobey, a University of Cincinnati student at the time of the arrest, staged the protest as he prepared to board a flight to Wisconsin to attend his grandfather’s funeral. Disorderly conduct charges were later dropped by the Henrico County prosecutor.
Lettering surely ain’t bad – if he did it himself. Decent hand-and-eye coordination.
He does this so that we all may have freedoms.
Thank you.
Sure it’s security theater, but you choose to buy the ticket. This is EXACTLY the same sort of “special place” situation that means you have no rights in school.
This dude is just an exhibitionist who wants to get himself on the news without all his clothes.
#2 Chris
“Sure its bullshit and a waste of money, but we should just roll over for it like sheep”
Disagree with him if you want, but he sees something he believes is wrong and he stood up.
Good for him.
#2, I have to strongly disagree with you on this.
The federal government is interfering in a private transaction between two interested parties — the airlines and the consumer. If you don’t submit to their demands, you cannot engage in the transaction.
Would you support this type of invasion just as strongly if they started doing it at Wal-Mart?
You know, I’m actually inspired and gladdened by this young man.
He is the future of this country, if it doesn’t die before he has a chance to make a difference.
Perhaps there is hope for us yet.
Glad to see people are waking up to what’s happening. That it’s a young person is even
more of a bonus.
#3 It appears that your statements Imply:
A) The Airlines have no stake in security screening
and
B) The Federal Government has no stake in commercial airtravel.
A) Aircraft Operators are required to have insurance on their aircraft. In an extreme comparison: If you go to an underwriter and say “I have this plane, I do no security screening whatso ever and dont do any threat mitigation, Will you insure me?” vs performing security screening. You can imagine that they are going to want to insure the safer option.
If an air carrier wants to have operations in the EU (ie: be able to land a plane) they must “…cover the risks associated with aviation-specific liability (including acts of war, terrorism, hijacking, acts of sabotage, unlawful seizure of aircraft and civil commotion).”
Airlines are MORE than happy to have a federal system come in and perform the security screening at a government subsidized cost.
B) The Federal government has MASSIVE subsidies to air travel to keep it operational. Just do a search for Essential Air Service, we have been mucking about with air travel since the 70’s
Also, I will answer your question with another question in regards to walmart: What exists at walmart to warrant the level of screening that is received at an airport? Airports are great avenues for dispersion of a biological attack or say, hijacking a plane. Last I heard you cant find a 747 on shelves there.
I think a more accurate issue to raise would be what policies of the TSA are completely absurd. It is completely asinine that we confiscate corkscrews with foil cutters on them because the 1/2″ blade constitutes a genuine threat. If someone forgets that they have their swiss army knife given to them by their dead dad in their carry-on bag I dont think we should be telling them to either throw it away or check their baggage and miss loosing their flight.
Chris (#2), would you have said the same thing to Rosa Parks back in the day? She bought a ticket to ride the bus, and she knew the bus’ policy was for “coloreds” to sit in the back. Therefore she had no right to sit in the front, right?
We all recognize today how absurd that argument sounds, and Ms. Parks is rightfully lauded as a visionary who refused to be cowed by those who wished to oppress her. Likewise, Mr. Tobey refuses to be cowed by government-employed thugs at our airports. I say, “Well done, sir!” Would that more of us had the guts to do likewise.
I’d hit it.
#8 “She bought a ticket to ride the bus, and she knew the bus’ policy was for “coloreds” to sit in the back. Therefore she had no right to sit in the front, right?”
Really? I can’t believe you see a legitimate parallel there.
Airport security might be more about making people feel safe than making them safer, but it is at least partially about keeping people safe. Can it be excessive? Yes. Is it even in the same zip code as segregation? No, absolutely not.
#4 “The federal government is interfering in a private transaction between two interested parties — the airlines and the consumer. ”
You might have noticed that there are, um, National Security implications about who gets on what flights with what items. You’re arguing closer to what are called “victimless crimes” not being the province of government.
Does 9/11 ring any bells?
I’m happy to complain about THE MAN. How about those puffer machines that we bought after 9/11 which subsequently turned out to be useless? Or the unwillingness to admit to, and get better at, profiling passengers?
Sure, this guy has a message and it isn’t a bad message. I don’t think he should go to jail or anything. Saying that he is akin to the Freedom Riders or that the USG doesn’t have the authority to provide airport security is beyond foolish.
I also hold to the idea that this guy is more exhibitionist than anything else.
It seems a bit odd to me that someone on his way to a funeral decided to stage a protest.
No one asked him to strip. He was being put through the same security idiocy as everyone else. When they saw the message he had written on himself, the correct response should have been: so what?
Maybe he should have tattooed it – that would be a real statement.
#2 He might choose to buy the ticket but if he wants or need to go somewhere, what choice does he have? Travel my train? Sorry, but the TSA already has the powers to set up “security” checkpoints at train stations, bus stations and even on roads. The only option that is really available is to travel by foot, across barren land, but I’m pretty darn sure that’s illegal too and is supervised by those 7000 drones that are already up there.
The land of the free, anyone?
“Does 9/11 ring any bells?”
Here we are at the 10th anniversary & there still no decent explaination of what really took place on 9-11.
A Great American stands up and fights for what is right. He is as great an American as any soldier is, period.
Benjamin Franklin – Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither,
If you disagree, immigrate to Russia, with my love.
Bravo to the kid. Freedom isn’t perfect, get used to it or get out.
#10 — Now that the cat is out of the bag, we are gearing up to do more behavioral profiling: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/tsa-launches-israeli-style-behavior-detection-at-bostons-logan-airport/
#12 TSA has railway teams that mostly carry out inspections. It is a hell of a lot more work to make a train crash into a building than an airplane, what with their being tracks and all.
#13 — A bunch of people got on planes and decided to crash them into buildings, from their arrival in the US until they actually boarded a plane until they made it into the cockpit a bunch of red flags lit up but no one said or did anything. one ticket agent said that she “saw pure evil and hate in his eyes” or something.
#14 — “I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — To say that those who disagree with what you have to say sounds a LOT like those pro-war Americans with the signs saying if you don’t support the war in Afghanistan you should leave the country.
Absolute freedom confers no security other than what you can manage with your own two hands, and absolute security leaves you with no freedom, I think we should focus on what is REASONABLE security measures for risk mitigation.
# 16 rtmthepenguin said,
#14 — “I disagree strongly with what you say,
You don’t disagree with me, you disagree with our founding fathers and over 200 years and American history.
Are you a closet Communist, Nazi, work for Homeland security or all the above?
#7, Airlines are MORE than happy to have a federal system come in and perform the security screening at a government subsidized cost.
Bingo!
Why not make the airlines do it? This is something I’ve never understood. If the airline is unsafe, they’ll go out of business. It is in their interest to ensure security is tight.
Ticket prices go up and the people who actually use the system fund the use of it.
re: Walmart
Anybody with high school chemistry could kill everybody in a Walmart with what is stocked on their shelves. What would it do to our economy if terrorists decided to hit half a dozen Walmarts at random around the country and everybody decided that walmart was unsafe to shop at?
#10, You might have noticed that there are, um, National Security implications about who gets on what flights with what items.
You really aren’t going to start quoting sound bites now, are you? National Security got us into Iraq. Got us into Libya. Got us into . . .
National Security is a catch all when all other arguments fail.
Both of you are assuming the airlines are incapable of securing their flights. I would argue that if they can manage to keep a plane in the air they damned sure have the ability to ensure the passengers are safe.
I also hold to the idea that this guy is more exhibitionist than anything else.
So was John Hancock.
http://tinyurl.com/3z7xaev
#16. If you are that afraid of terrorists, maybe this country isn’t right for you. We terrorize other nations with impunity. But if we get a little blow back, we cower like children.
Maybe you, maybe WE should address the root cause.
#18 — “Why not make the airlines do it? This is something I’ve never understood. If the airline is unsafe, they’ll go out of business. It is in their interest to ensure security is tight.”
having the government come in and do it conveys 3 specific advantages:
1) Subsidized — they get charged a fraction of the TSA operating costs as opposed to having to pay out of pocket like pre 9-11 screening (Screening of passengers and baggage has been in place since 1974)
2) It gives a security scapegoat “its not our fault you had to leave X behind, its TSA”
3) Why would you risk facing fines for non compliance for federal regulations when the feds are more than happy to do your job for you?
On Walmart: John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo were much better at paralyzing a large area with the low cost method of a rifle, a truck, and a 2 man team. But this type of attack is not high profile a bomb with fire and a collapsed building make a much better statement than someone who was shot dead in the street and is cleaned up.
Furthermore you raise and interesting idea that would be outside of the scope of an agency called the Transportation Security Administration.
#17: Those 200 years of history disagree with you see: McCarran Internal Security Act (1950), Executive Order 9066 (1942), Sedition Act of 1918. I could keep going, but unfortunately the US has had a policy of saying the first amendment does not apply when the going gets tough.
More on point: are you saying that people have no expectation whatsoever of security when they are traveling? Rather than petty name calling and stating that i belong in two groups that are radically different lets focus on some rational discourse I will even write in all caps to make it easier to see: WHERE DO YOU YOURSELF, NONAME, DRAW THE LINE ON WHAT IS CONSIDERED A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SECURITY?
There are no “National Security implications” with respect to airliners. Airliners do crash, on remote occasions (thank goodness), and those crashes have no “National Security implications”. Even if the crash happens in a major urban area.
You, Sir, get off on fear.
#20
dont misunderstand, I think that we should take a much more isolationist approach to the world. we have no business arming drug runners in mexico, letting our soldiers overseas to slaughter entire villages for fun, http://presstv.ir/detail/192588.html and i think its time we stopped being world police and start focusing on our own damned problems.
#12 “He might choose to buy the ticket but if he wants or need to go somewhere, what choice does he have? Travel my train? Sorry, but the TSA already has the powers to set up “security” checkpoints at train stations, bus stations and even on roads.”
#16 “Now that the cat is out of the bag, we are gearing up to do more behavioral profiling”
Good, it works. I think we should admit to profiling by race and national origin as well. It happens anyway right now, only we look the other way (like payments to college athletes(do they REALLY do that?)). Better to bring it into the open.
#18
“You really aren’t going to start quoting sound bites now, are you? National Security got us into Iraq. Got us into Libya. Got us into . . .
National Security is a catch all when all other arguments fail”
That’s actually true. “National Security” was brand that started as a way to sell the Cold War. Later it became a legal privilege that allowed the government to refuse to release information. Both were stinky, if not outright fraudulent.
Shattered Peace by Daniel Yergin and Claim of Privilige by Barry Siegel describe one elements mentioned above. Good reads.
That doesn’t disguise the fact we are talking about SECURITY GUARDS, and not foreign invasion forces.
Maybe your rhetoric is a bit overblown?
“Both of you are assuming the airlines are incapable of securing their flights.”
They didn’t do a very good job on 9/11 did they?
#22 “You, Sir, get off on fear.”
Not so much. I get off on reading a lot, then educating the internet. 😉 An impossible job, but I’m happy to help.
#24 I will tell you that we do NOT racial profile at my airport I cant say about others.
We have had behavior detection officers in place for quite a long time, but now we are shifting to have that as a main screening function instead of a secondary function: http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/bdo/index.shtm
I happen to agree with the lad. If everyone took the time to protest this stupidity it would have been abandoned by now. Too many stupid sheeple just say “9/11” lets give up all our rights.
Yikes, I forgot to answer #12 even though I quoted him.
It goes like this. If you go to a car rental agency after being manhandled by TSA security and refuse to sign their standard contract they will tell you to walk.
Yes, he can walk. Big business isn’t going to give you a custom deal on a commodity service. You can take the deal or not. Why should big bad government play a different game?
Why should big bad government play a different game?
The government has two things going for it:
1.) the golden rule (whoever has the gold, rules)
2.) deadly force. It’s hard to argue against the the typically roid-raged disturbed public servant with a loaded gun pointed at you!
Big business lacks the deadly force aspect (except maybe blackwater and some other paramilitary companies).
#28 “and some other paramilitary companies”
Like… private security guards? Do you assume that nobody is going to be posted at the secure area doors? Got to assume those guys would be packing too, this being America.
Off for the evening.
To everyone who responded: even in a relatively free society there are going to be people who have power over you. Sometimes these people are going to be bad or stupid.
What I find fault with is the view that there is no plausible role for the USG in securing interstate/international air travel by putting guards in domestic airports.
Conflating TSA with segregation or our foolish military adventures actually does a disservice to those things. Makes them seem less in the comparison.