TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
from the don't-be-a-victim dept
Amy Alkon is an advice columnist and blogger who is just one of many people who has had a horrifying and traumatizing experience going through airport security lately. After being pulled aside for an "enhanced" search, she found the process to be so invasive and so in violation of her own rights that she was left sobbing. She wrote about the experience on her blog, noting that she didn't think the search was just "invasive" in the emotional sense, but flat out physically invasive:Nearing the end of this violation, I sobbed even louder as the woman, FOUR TIMES, stuck the side of her gloved hand INTO my vagina, through my pants. Between my labia. She really got up there. 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.After investigating whether or not she could file sexual assault charges, and being told that this was probably a non-starter, she instead wrote about the experience, and named the TSA agent who she dealt with: Thedala Magee. Alkon felt that if people can't stop these kinds of searches, they should at least be able to name the TSA agents who are doing them.
Upon leaving, still sobbing, I yelled to the woman, "YOU RAPED ME." And I took her name to see if I could file sexual assault charges on my return. This woman, and all of those who support this system deserve no less than this sort of unpleasant experience, and from all of us.
Magee responded by lawyering up and threatening Alkon with defamation and asking for $500,000 and the removal of the blog post.
Alkon, with the help of lawyer Marc Randazza, has now responded, refusing to back down. Both letters are embedded below, but here are a few key quotes:
Your client aggressively pushed her fingers into my client’s vulva. I am certain that she did not expect to find a bomb there. She did this to humiliate my client, to punish her for exercising her rights, and to send a message to others who might do the same. It was absolutely a sexual assault, perpetrated in order to exercise power over the victim. We agree with Ms. Alkon’s characterization of this crime as “rape,” and so would any reasonable juror.I honestly don't know if this reaches the "technical" definition of rape, but I am massively troubled, if not horrified, by the idea that a woman who feels sexually assaulted based on what happened above ends up being threatened for saying she felt violated. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Furthermore, even if your client did not actually sexually assault my client, Ms. Alkon’s statements to and about Ms. Magee would still be protected by the First Amendment. The word “rape” itself has been the subject of defamation cases by far more sympathetic Plaintiffs than your client. In Gold v. Harrison, 962 P.2d 353 (Haw. 1998), cert denied, 526 U.S. 1018 (1999), the Hawai’i Supreme Court held that a defendant’s characterization of his neighbors’ seeking an easement in his backyard as “raping [the defendant]” was not defamatory. This speech was protected as rhetorical hyperbole. Of course, we need not seek out Hawai’i case law in order to debunk your unsupportable claims. Rhetorical hyperbole has a strong history of favorable treatment in defamation actions. See Greenbelt Cooperative Pub. Ass'n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 14 (1970). This doctrine acknowledges our First Amendment right to express ourselves, even when employing literary license. Accordingly, even if your client’s actions were not “rape,” Ms. Alkon had every right to characterize them as such.
No free woman should endure what your client did to Ms. Alkon. Fortunately, Ms. Alkon is capable of recognizing injustice, and for the good of us all, she had the courage to speak out on this matter of public concern of the highest order. After Magee’s assault on Ms. Alkon’s vagina and dignity, Ms. Alkon exercised her First Amendment right to recount this incident to others in person and through her blog. This was not only her right -- it was her responsibility.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: amy alkon, defamation, enhanced search, pat down, rape, thedala magee, tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Anybody see the bottom...
I do think it was at least 'wrong', if not illegal, to name the security agent publicly. File charges and name them that way, but publicly by screaming "You raped me!" and then following up with talking about it online using names just strikes me as a bit more than Ms. Alkon likely should have done.
I'm not in any way defending the TSA and if what Ms. Alkon described happened, she should be suing the TSA worker for assault at the very least.
There should be video of this encounter which would show some exertion of the TSA worker actively working her hand up into Ms. Alkon. Far more exertion than simply going up and touching her vagina which I believe is the TSA's stated policy; i.e. to make sure there is nothing in the underwear, not to make sure there is nothing in the vagina - though sadly I'm sure we'll get there before too long
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
If Ms. Magee does get $500,000 out of this, wont the local DA have no choice but to press charges for prostitution?
If not, would the TSA be setting a new precedent for prostitution by legal force (which I shall dub profitable litigious sex, or PLS for short)?
Its kind of an awkward position the TSA may be setting up for all those deadbeat johns out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
You have very delicate sensibilities.
Do you faint often?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
You don't know what you'd do under every condition; But if someone penetrated you with their fingers.... then, an only then, could you respond so condescendingly flippant without sounding like complete putz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
My apologies.
I think i was conflating it with another comment that was with all earnestness criticizing Alkon's reaction.
I seem to be having an Emily Latella moment.
".....never mind!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
And you're wrong. Think about it. Does a rape victim just stand there silently and think "I'll complain about it later". No, they'll scream and shout, because of the trauma of the incident. Unless she's a Vulcan from Star Trek, then what you expect of this woman is completely nonsensical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Not all do, I should point out, precisely because of the trauma of the incident.
Regardless, this TSA agent should at least be fired, but I doubt even that will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
They can't fire the agent because then the TSA would have to admit that something wrong has been done and they can't do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Unwanted prolonged sexual contact.. hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[Censured for national security reasons]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Oh, that whole "rape" charge? No, that was merely coincidental, we were in the process of laying her off as her position has been made redundant...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
I am troubled by that statement. Rape victims are not required to scream and shout to be considered legitimate. Whether they scream or not, it's still rape. There are plenty of reasons why a victim might choose not to resist rape beyond denying consent, not least of all being fear of making the situation worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
You are highly delusional with that frame of logic I have to say. This isn't a woman getting raped in an alley, this was under "legal" search. A first reaction might not be to scream but to try horribly to process what is happening and justify it in some way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
If the TSA agent really did sexually assault her (which seems true just based on the fact that TSA procedure pretty much is sexual assault), the woman shouldn't be shamed or sued into silence. The last thing our society needs is legally institutionalized sexual assault on top of a culture of silence and shame for victims.
I don't have a problem with publicly shaming the TSA agents. They work for an agency with unethical policies and their continued employment means that the unethical nature of the agency extends to them. If paying your mortgage is more important than your ethics, you get what you pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
I think we have a hard enough time with rape going unreported without naming your attacker publicly being made illegal or opening you to defamation suits if you fail to prove your case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Applying this logic universally, you seem to be saying that rape victims should not speak out about being raped except to file charges. If not then please explain why you believe it applies here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
So when a woman is sexually violated and is emotionally traumatized she should just move along quietly? Her outburst at the time of the incident is understandable.
If she files charges, that information is public knowledge as well.
I do agree that an accusation of rape should require charges to be filed. I'm not sure who would advise a woman who endured what she claims that assault charges are a non-starter. If you are going to accuse someone publicly of a crime, then you must follow through with an attempt to have that person prosecuted. Failure to do so would open yourself up, in my eyes, to defamation.
If she publicly named the woman on a blog without pressing charges, then the TSA agent should be able to take legal action. If someone accuses me of rape, and puts that accusation on the Internet with my name, to be found for who knows how long by anyone Google searching my name, it could have very serious effects on my employment, and many other things.
If I am found not-guilty of the accused crime, I should also have recourse against the woman for a defamatory blog post. I think the woman took a foolish step making the accusation on a blog post before the incident was prosecuted as a crime. She should have immediately called the police and filed sexual assault charges. I personally would not see what happened as rape, but as always, I'm not a lawyer. However, based on her description, I think sexual assault would be appropriate.
I'm not a fan of the TSA policy at all. But we cannot allow one crime to justify another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Suppose someone accused you of rape. Suppose they posted this accusation on a blog, with information connecting you specifically to the accusation. That post gets indexed by Google. Any employer in the future that does a web search on you may see this and choose not to hire you based on this information. Do you think you have to just accept it? Do you not have any recourse to recover damages an unproven accusation can cause to you?
People cannot make serious accusations against others without being held responsible for said accusations if they are not proven to be true. Legally, she could be charged with both slander and libel.
The appropriate place to accuse someone of a crime is in court. Once the crime is tried and a conviction is granted, then she could post a blog declaring she was raped and it would be supported by the court as a factual statement of record.
Publishing and/or verbally communicating to others that a specific person raped you without going to court is a crime itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
If the latter, your stance is completely without merit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
"History is full of the result of men just simply following orders"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
The next day she has called your boss, and told them you raped her. She posts on all the social networks that you raped her. You have mutual friends and they are all told that you raped the woman.
You lose your job. You lose your friends. You find it difficult to get another job because there are publicly available accounts that you raped her online for anyone to read.
You don't want your name associated with this but she has the right to make accusations without pressing charges. Everyone will believe her because she said it happened and her account is all that matters.
This is your reality. It is not, however, how things work in the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
When the RIAA says that people are guilty of "content theft", that is not true because it is instead copyright infringement. When unions or politicians say that immigrants are "stealing" jobs, that is not true in the legal sense. However, none of these people are guilty of defamation.
If it turns out that the victim was lying all along and that the TSA agent gave her an appropriate pat-down which did not involve repeated touching of the vagina in a particularly distasteful way, then the TSA agent would have a case. But if all the TSA agent is complaining about is that "rape" is not the technical and legal definition of what she did, then she has no defamation case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Forget your day in court. What she said happened exactly as she said it. It doesn't matter that she didn't have any evidence other than her testimony.
That's a bit of a different situation than what we have here because the facts don't appear to be contested
So a non-sworn statement of a person accusing someone of rape, who, after being raped, merely took down the name of her attacker without ever filing a police report is considered fact? Seriously?
Not contested? Seeking a lawyer on grounds of defamation seems like a pretty good example of contesting.
But hey. The TSA agent is a TSA agent. She MUST be guilty. Let's summarily take her rights away because this other woman isn't a TSA agent and therefore her word is FACT.
Our country is is where it is because people like you believe the rights of others can be suspended and superseded for the rights of someone else.
But remember, when that day comes and you are accused of a crime falsely, it doesn't matter. You did it because you were accused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
That's not what I said. What I said is that your accuser has to prove that you were committing defamation (which includes showing that you were lying) in order for you to be guilty of defamation in just the same way as the prosecution has to prove you guilty of rape in order for you to be guilty of rape. A defamation case failing does not in and of itself mean the facts stated by the defenders were true. It just means defamation was not proved.
"So a non-sworn statement of a person accusing someone of rape, who, after being raped, merely took down the name of her attacker without ever filing a police report is considered fact? Seriously?"
Actually yes. It might be an alleged fact only, it might be a false fact. But it is still a fact because that's what we call the subject of factual statements.
"Not contested? Seeking a lawyer on grounds of defamation seems like a pretty good example of contesting."
From reading the letter, it does not appear that she is contesting the facts. It appears she is contesting the woman describing the facts as "rape". That is not contesting the facts. That is contesting the opinion.
"But hey. The TSA agent is a TSA agent. She MUST be guilty. Let's summarily take her rights away because this other woman isn't a TSA agent and therefore her word is FACT."
You know, as much as that is not what I was saying here, that would not bother me too much. The TSA does have official procedures that involve violating people's constitutional rights and overall being pretty awful. So given the fact that the courts are ok with the TSA violating our fundamental rights, I don't see much of a problem with justice coming from outside of the judicial system in the form of TSA agents being universally reviled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
By claiming she is being defamed, that is pretty much saying the agent is calling the woman a liar. She hasn't answered to anything more specific because, get this...she hasn't been charged with a crime.
If she hasn't even been charged with rape, calling her a rapist is defamatory. The accusation affects her job. It affects her safety.
Do you really believe that stripping the TSA agent's rights based on unverified, unquestioned accusations of someone won't one day come back to haunt you? Isn't your stance of stripping the rights of the agent no better than what the TSA is doing to us with the illegal searches in the first place?
Do you not see that your view only further erodes your own rights? Or are you so blinded by the accusation and your own dislike of the TSA that you are willing to help them along by throwing away more citizen's rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
You have some very good arguments, but I've read them all, multiple times. Take a break! Get a life! You've made your point; now move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
I would agree if the TSA was on equal legal footing as the rest of us. As it is they are not and have been granted authority from the state to do what they do, and all the immunity that comes with it. To level the legal playing field they should have a higher burden of proof for things like defamation like public figures do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
First of all, no question of sexual contact. Video of the sexual contact exists.
Second, it was done under duress - with the or else of missing the flight, possible fine, arrest, and being placed on the no fly list, or worse.
Finally, there is no obligation by a TSA officer to commit and illegal act, even under orders.
P.S. I'd argue that no defamation exists here. The TSA already has a reputation for sexual assault, theft, and other misdeeds such that no loss of reputation could possibly occur, and indeed that TSA actively seeks such a reputation to intimidate fliers into compliance.
"Let them hate so long as they fear" - Calligula
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
And these sentences pretty much make your comparison an invalid parallel. The TSA agent was not "a perfect gentleman" and did touch her. And it certainly wasn't a kiss goodnight.
As a rape crisis counselor, false accusations turn my stomach, because they trivialize the experiences of many of the survivors I've dealt with and it can certainly ruin the life of the accused. However, having a alleged sexual assault sanctioned by the government doesn't make it any less disgusting, the TSA agent any less culpable, or the general practices of the TSA any more constitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
True, but fairly meaningless. I could file suit against anybody I want for libel and slander. That doesn't mean I'll win. I think this TSA agent would have a very hard time proving these statements are defamatory.
Besides that, it is up to the DA to press rape charges, not the victim. And you can imagine how enthusiastic a DA will be about charging a federal employee with sexual assault for something she did (supposedly) as part of her job duties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Really? I have to wait until someone's convicted of a crime to accuse them of something publicly?
Can I tell my mom?
Are the really good criminals, i.e., the ones that get away with their crimes, also deserving of this immunity?
I'd love -- LOVE -- a link to the exact statute that criminalizes speech in this fashion.
While you're trying to dig that link up, (and it may take some time,) here's some reading for you. Try not to get hung up on the big words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Defenses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
The people that told her its a non-starter are the ones that are supposed to enforce the law/investigate, they didnt want to investigate a fellow "peace keeper" / public servant so they said, sorry no go... so yes she had to stand on mount internet and shout this person raped me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
I do not believe they are allowed to do whatever they want. I believe that they are trained and there are certain methods they are supposed to use. Despite what others say, I don't believe that all TSA agents are pervs and pedophiles either.
I think those who go beyond the methods outlined should be held accountable for their actions. This is done by filing charges and taking them to court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Well, that's not what I said. What I said is that most likely in this case, that agent will not be sanctioned in any way and that if the victim's description is accurate, the TSA agent's actions were despicable. The reaction of the TSA to previous scandals is what leads me to believe that the TSA agent will not suffer any consequences.
"Despite what others say, I don't believe that all TSA agents are pervs and pedophiles either."
Of course they are not pervs and pedophiles. They are just following orders and going on power trips. Not pervs and pedophiles but still bad people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Basically as I think Texas found out, the TSA is allowed under its statute to do all this and cannot be prosecuted due to this immunity.
Doesn't matter if the Sexual Assault case has merit, an individual has a mighty battle to prove that that immunity has been negated by nonfeasance or other tortuous actions.
So with this Woman, who IMHO has been absolutely assaulted and had an imminent fear, as can be seen by her outburst or as the TSA employee's lawyer states 'created a scene', and has every recourse that natural justice can give her.
We are talking about a Public Employee here, who has no expectation of privacy whatsoever whilst performing their duties as said public employee, and since the alleged incident and statement of "rape" was stated, as both sides agree on, in a public forum (the airport concourse), then her right and ability to publish it online, shout it from the rooftops, and generally make the public aware is absolute.
Interestingly, for the TSA agent to now personally demand reparations for an alleged defamation suit, that TSA agent is most likely removing her immunity since she is now doing it in a private capacity. If the case goes to court and a court finds that the allegation is truthful and in the public interest, charges could be laid for sexual assault or at the least nonfeasance.
I have a suspicion that Mr Randazza would love to take this all the way to a court, and even though this is an individual person not acting on behalf of the TSA, that the TSA would very much NOT want this to go to court ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
obligation of police officer.
The courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations. So sure, the police are supposed to take the report... Maybe they do, or maybe not.
I am aware of at least one situation where a woman called to report a crime, and was arrested and strip searched by the police for her trouble.
Then too, the DA may not want to fight the system he is a part of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: obligation of police officer.
Your psychic abilities combined with your conspiracy theories that the entire government is filled with evil people who want to oppress their fellow citizens have determined this.
I know one thing that is fact. If you do not call the police, they will not come to take your report. That is what happened here. Nothing more. No conspiracy between the TSA and the local police and prosecutor. Ms. Aklon simply did not bother to file charges. Although she claims she was raped, she was too busy with her travel plans to call the police.
Hey, I dunno, do most women who are raped at an airport just go on with their plans, attend a conference and later on call a lawyer instead of the police? Why bother calling the police anyway. There is a chance it will be proven your accusation is false. Why risk that when you can just declare the rape happened with no need to prove it? Much easier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: obligation of police officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: obligation of police officer.
So if a woman does not call the police but instead chooses to call you a rapist, she doesn't need to file rape charges and you must accept being called a rapist? That's what happened here. Do you support this?
Let me give you a hint the police very rarely take the TSA officer off to jail
Why? Is it because of some great conspiracy between all local law enforcement and the TSA? Or maybe it's because there was no evidence of a crime?
Go do some reasearch and then come back and chat.
Do you find dismissing anyone who disagrees with you makes you feel like your points are more informed? Let's see.
According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network
http://www.rainn.org/statistics
In the US there are 213,000 sexual assaults a year.
60% are not reported, so that leave 85,000 reports of sexual assault every year.
2/3rd of those assault are committed by friends, family or other people they know.
So if a TSA agent sexually assaults you, what can you do? Read these:
http://www.tsagoons.com/2011/04/20/tsa-agent-charged-with-sexual-assault/
http://www.ne wworldorderwar.com/tag/tsa-agent-charged-with-6-counts-of-lewd-acts-with-a-child/
http://www.theg atewaypundit.com/2010/11/tsa-agent-arrested-on-sexual-assault-rape-charges-video/
These are just three examples I found. I have no doubt there are more. You see. When you are raped or assaulted, you call the police. You press charges. Anyone who tell you that cannot be done is just full of crap.
You choose to defend a woman who has publicly slandered a TSA agent without attempting to file charges. She could have. Absolutely she could have and to say otherwise is to be uninformed.
No you would rather stand beside her unsubstantiated claims because other TSA people are bad. And um, searches yeah these searches are all across the board sexual assault but we cannot charge the TSA with assault see...no don't read those examples of TSA agents being brought up on charges!! That couldn't happen!! No, we must just believe this woman and permit her actions because we are mindless zombies who don't think for ourselves and just make snarky, ignorant comments and then feel good about ourselves for standing up for this victim.
All the while victimizing another citizen.
/golfclap
Seriously, I give up on you guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: obligation of police officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: obligation of police officer.
To think in a Pure She Side, She Said situation against the politically toxic TSA that any prosecutor would touch this case with a 10 foot pole with out more evidence of true malfeasance on the part of the agent is naive at best. It simply would not occur..
Short of a Video AND audio of the TSA Agent physically assaulting the victim while screaming "ohh baby ohh baby" nothing criminal would occur, as it would be viewed as a "Administrative Search" and be brushed aside
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: obligation of police officer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Code_of_Silence
As was previously stated, people cannot file criminal charges, only a DA can. For all we know, she want to the DA and he refused to press charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: obligation of police officer.
The accuser stands to profit from this in many ways: increased publicity, increased site traffic, opportunity to generate book sales, etc. etc. She has not shown any evidence (beyond her unverified public accusation) that she was raped. She benefits from this, the person she falsely accused is injured.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: obligation of police officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: obligation of police officer.
BTW, lawyers charge $ 350 an hour and up to handle matters. Just how much of her money is she supposed to invest here.
One final matter: What's more important here? Actual, admitted, videotaped molestation, under color of law, or "slander" of an employee following unlawful orders? After all, the employee could have said, "Give me anyother job. I refuse to molest other women." instead of saying, "I was just following orders."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
> of a crime, then you must follow through with
> an attempt to have that person prosecuted.
Did the article not say that shge attempted to do that and was told it would go nowhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
She asked one lawyer his opinion. When that didn't work, she decided to slander the agent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
> name my assailant
How would you do that? You've already claimed that accusing someone of rape without a conviction to back it up is defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
She tried to press charges first. I think she is entirely justified in going public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
If the prosecutor, and every lawyer you contact refuses, then you might consider that your accusation has no merit, if not one single person, seeing what you presented, feels it is actionable.
If this occurs, you are not suddenly given the legal right to claim you were raped anyway and name that person publicly. They were not found guilty, and the truth is, nobody you went to believed you had enough evidence to prove rape in the first place.
When you declare someone committed a crime that they did not commit (legally, not just in your mind), that my friend, in California, where this happened...is defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Rape is also an action. You state that rape is a crime--and in most places and in most cases it is. But not all places in this world is rape a crime--there are places where a husband can legally rape his wife. Should they not be able to use the world rape when describing what happened to them because it is not a crime.
The TSA agent is not disputing what happened. She is disputing how Ms. Alkon characterized the assault. So what if we call what happened to this blogger "forced entry into her vaginal cavity by a foreign object (the TSA agents hand)" Oh wait that is the definition of rape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Or the prosecutor could decide not to prosecute for any reason they choose. This article notes that US prosecutors have "absolute and unreviewable power to choose whether or not to bring criminal charges".http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-Discretion.html
If they choose not to prosecute you cannot just "seek out another lawyer" since only the prosecutor can file criminal charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Failure to legally prosecute a crime is NOT justification for slander. Don't let your emotions and desire to believe the accusation convince you to ignore the rights of another.
If a woman publishes in a column that you raped her and people read that, they are going to think of you exactly the way you are thinking of the TSA agent. They are going to believe the woman. It will affect your life in a very negative way.
If you didn't rape her, what do you do?
You file defamation charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
As are almost of the Nazi Smurfs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
I disagree. If the courts are going to stand by and allow federal agents to sexually assault people, there is no reason the rest of us have to remain silent. If this story is true the likes of Thedala Magee should be publicly named, shamed and we should all use all the legal tools at our disposal to make her feel unwelcome wherever she goes. There is no reason boycotts should only be applied against companies that misbehave. With today's technology it would not be that difficult to hook-up a webcam to a facial recognition database and refuse to interact with anyone who is known to have acted in ways that are grossly improper though legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
u mean there's no reason to not get huge protest going and go to dc, push everyone out of the congress building and say to the world "we are starting over, this government has failed"
once rape is legal for for federal agents and freedom of speech is questionable for citizens, how much will it take for rape to become murder, and questionable to become outlawed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Spoken like a true sheeple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Come off it. Next you'll be suggesting that police officers have a right to privacy and we can't name them either.
The agent took a job interacting with the public, and the public has no reasonable alternative choice. She deserves to be named when she does her job well, and when she does it poorly. If she doesn't like the lack of anonymity, she should get another job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
"If [TSA agent] elects to be a TSA agent, earning a living by violating American's constitutional rights daily, nobody is under any obligation to show her respect. In fact we believe that it is every American's patriotic duty to treat TSA agents with the utmost disrespect. The agency's reign is no more ligitimate that a foreign occupation, and even treating TSA agents with common courtesy enables theuir agents to continue."
In the good old times "Utmost disrespect" meant tar, feathers, and good rope; in this politically correct digital age, publishing their names and addresses when opportunity presents itself, looks adequate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
It says in the article that she thought of that first but was advised that in the end the court would probably side with the TSA (if only to keep from opening the lawsuit floodgates, probably).
From the article:
"After investigating whether or not she could file sexual assault charges, and being told that this was probably a non-starter, she instead wrote about the experience..."
I don't think it was wrong to name the person. Court is for cops. Lets sort this out nonphysically on the streets and liberty will win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Probably true, and it's worth noting that a court has no right to decide based on such things, they are not questions of law. If true it's all the more reason to use self-help and avoid the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Yes, how very dare a woman who was raped publicly name her attacker. Someone please bring me my smelling salts, my fainting couch, and a string of pearls to clutch.
Seriously though... you know what else is wrong and illegal? RAPE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
A) The search was way too intrusive, not only to the victim but also according to the TSA guidelines.
B) The agent followed the TSA guidelines to the letter, thus were not personally at fault. But the guidelines obviously yields too intrusive searches and need to be both exposed and adjusted.
Under absolutely no circumstances should genitalia be touched or searched. If there is suspicion of something carried within a person (could easily be in the stomach too, and it cannot be grope searched in any way), an x-ray or similar must be performed. There's no need to fondle genitalia unless part of a sexual act which should not happen at a TSA checkpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
I have not, as yet, been pulled aside to go through either the pervert scanner or sexual assault feelup. I wont get along very well with either and, this is just me, I am not one to simply go along with an assault. I haven't yet decided on my physical response (and it WILL be physical) to being felt up...I either drop the fat f*ck grabbing my stuff right there or the instant he stands up I do a VERY aggressive feelup on him myself. Goose-gander and all that. I will NOT quietly submit.
I applaud this woman's response and hope she doubles down and keeps pushing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
My understanding of the article is that she was/is a TSA security agent working at an airport not an undercover agent of the CIA, FBI, DEA etc... that would be put in grave danger by her identity being known.
Now if the victim had published her address phone number etc... in some misguided call for revenge I would agree but there is no protections afforded for rank and file law enforcement, their names are on their uniforms for a reason. We as citizens have a right to know who they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop me if I'm going too fast for you.......
No federal district court will entertain a civil suit against a federal law enforcement employee without evidence on the level of a bullet wound. Her ONLY course of action was to publicize her utter humiliation, in hopes that public opinion might force action at the congressional level.
What fairyland are you living in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technical definition
Can anybody pin down the jurisdiction more definitely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technical definition
Assuming everyone agrees that fingering is a sexual act then I believe this would be legally classed as rape in the US.
From Wikipedia:
United States Federal Law [Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 47X, Section 920, Article 120] defines rape as:
(a) Rape.— Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by—
(1) using force against that other person;
(2) causing grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnaping;
(4) rendering another person unconscious; or
(5) administering to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
This sounds EXACTLY like the TSA. "You must submit to sexual touching or terrorists might kill people, or we might put you in jail". Sounds like its dead on this statute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:
(7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by
threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate,
arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a
reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used
in this paragraph, "public official" means a person employed by a
governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position,
to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not
actually have to be a public official.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
263. The essential guilt of rape consists in the outrage to the
person and feelings of the victim of the rape. Any sexual
penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
However, I didn't see any claims that she had to consent or she would be locked up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
> or deportation if she didn't consent to the
> search? From my understanding, anyone who
> refuses the search at worst is simply denied
> access to their flight.
You understand wrong. There have been several cases of people who have gotten to the front of the screening line, then decided they don't want to go through the scanner or be felt up, and have attempted to turn around and leave the airport, only to be detained by the police and told that once a person starts the security screening process, they cannot revoke consent and walk away or they will be arrested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
I have seen lots of videos on YouTube where people refuse to be searched and they were simply not allowed through the checkpoint.
I would be most interested in reading the several accounts you mentioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
I don't have the time to find them right now, but Masnick has reported on at least one such case here on Techdirt. A search through the archives would probably yield what you're looking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101115/11033711873/tsa-threatens-to-sue-guy-for-not-agreei ng-to-having-his-groin-touched-by-tsa-agents.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/tsa-pat-down-search-abuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
They didn't need to threaten her or hold her down because they were already in a position to commit the act. Which would seem to put the act under 'using force' anyway. Did she consent to being penetrated? No. Was she warned that she was going to be penetrated? No. Was a threat necessary for them to commit the act? No. How is it not rape even under federal law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
This did not happen.
"They didn't need to threaten her or hold her down"
I doubt she could convince a jury that she felt her life was in danger, she was going to suffer bodily harm, or would be arrested if she did not consent to the search.
That being said, if she believes she was raped, then she should file rape charges and let the courts decide. Personally, I see no reason why she should not file rape charges if she feels she was raped.
But she made accusations of rape without filing any charges. Unless her accusation is proven, then it is legally considered false. In the United States, the TSA Agent is legally considered innocent of the charges until she is proven guilty. So therefore it is very likely that the blog accusations are currently defamatory.
Whether or not we feel she was or wasn't raped or assaulted is absolutely irrelevant when considering the defamation charges.
The bottom line is the TSA Agent has not been proven guilty, so the accusation is defamatory until such time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
Is finger penetration considered rape under federal and California law? Yes, explicitly stated in both.
Was a threat required for them to commit the act? No, but if it was implied then California has that covered.
Was warning given? No, ergo no consent or even chance to object.
Was force used? As much as was needed, in that the act was committed without warning.
Is there any difference between being unconscious (explicitly listed as a qualifier) and being violated without warning? Yes, in that being conscious she was able to fully experience 'not' being raped.
As for the defamation stuff, did you even read the article? Her lawyer explains it pretty explicitly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d021.htm
"An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation."
The woman didn't contact the police. From her blog:
"Upon leaving, still sobbing, I yelled to the woman, "YOU RAPED ME." And I took her name to see if I could file sexual assault charges on my return."
WHAT? She took her name down to see if she could file sexual assault charges? If she was RAPED, why was she not on the phone with police on the spot? Who did she finally contact? A lawyer.
"I was waiting for a reply from a lawyer about the possibility of filing sexual assault charges. It turns out that filing charges is probably a no-go."
One lawyer said he didn't think sexual assault charges would stick. Why did she never contact the police? If a crime is committed, you don't "take down the name" of your rapist and call a lawyer later.
She handled this the wrong way. No charges were filed. All we have is her story written on a blog, naming a woman who has not had the opportunity to refute the accusation.
Was the woman violated? I believe she was? Rape or sexual assault? I do not have the legal knowledge to make that declaration. Were her civil liberties violated? Yes, since I believe the searches are illegal in the first place.
Has she defamed the TSA agent. In my eyes, yes. Again, I am not a legal expert, but it appears to be a pretty strong case.
Just because you feel you are wronged, does NOT give you the right to go out and wrong that person. You have the right, no, the RESPONSIBILITY to bring them to court and face your accusation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
Dude. The courts are absolutely fucked up.
No one gets justice in the courts.
You don't have any responsibilty to engage in futility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
That's entirely besides the point. The lawyer was pointing out precedent where someone had called something rape even though it was not legally rape. The point being made is not that the agent raped someone as it is defined by the law. The whole point is that you can indeed use the word rape outside of the context of a rape as the law defines it. Conviction is not necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
http://digitaldefamation.com/california_defamation_law.htm
Read section 46:Slander. Charging someone falsely of a crime, in this instance rape, is slander. Since it has not been proven that the agent has committed rape, this accusation is legally false. Therefore the agent has grounds for a defamation case against the woman.
I think the settlement letter sent asking for $500k is excessive however. I hope Mike keeps us posted on the development of this story. I think it should go to court personally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
OK. That means for a slander conviction to be obtained one has to prove slander which means proving the crime to be false. It is therefore up to the accuser to show that the woman lied. The woman who said she was raped is not guilty until proven innocent despite what you are trying to say.
"Since it has not been proven that the agent has committed rape, this accusation is legally false."
Actually no. Since the crime has not been proven what that means is the agent is not in jail and is not guilty of rape. It does not mean she has not committed rape. Given that no court has ruled on whether rape has occured or not, the facts of this case are legally in limbo being neither proved true nor false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
Why not? Kansas law (which happened to be the first one I came across while searching), specifically identifies finger penetration as sexual intercourse and requires a warrant to be issued for the act to be considered exempt as a lawful body cavity search. In Kansas, at least, this seems to be quite plainly rape. I will try and find the specific law if I can find the specific state the incident took place in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
However, at http://www.shouselaw.com/sexual_battery.html
There seems to be some details on Sexual Battery.
In order to obtain a conviction for a California sexual battery, the prosecution must prove each of the following three facts:
(1) That you touched the intimate part of another,
(2) That the touching was
(a) Against the will of the other person, or
(b) That consent was fraudulently obtained, and
(3) That you touched the other person to specifically cause sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse.
I would think the TSA agent would argue the touching was not against her will, as she consented to the search and it was not fraudulently obtained since the search was TSA policy.
Again, I do not condone the searches. Not only do I consider them against the 4th Amendment, but I also believe that there are TSA agents who abuse this illegal authority even further. However the woman's responsibility here was to contact police and file charges. She cannot just go making rape accusations without having any proof that her accusations are true.
If you are victimized, go to court. Prosecute the crime. Don't just go home and publish an accusation on the Internet and then act surprised when you get taken to court yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
I would like to see where the TSA got the authority to commit acts of penetration. Or are you saying she consented to a body cavity search?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
However, without a rape conviction, her publicly naming the TSA agent as a rapist is defamation. Unless the TSA agent is convicted of a crime, you cannot communicate that the person is guilty of the crime without the possibility of being held accountable for that claim.
This discussion isn't really about whether or not the woman was raped or assaulted. It's about the woman defaming the TSA Agent who has not been convicted of rape by declaring she did in fact rape her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
Bullshit.
It ain't defamation if it's true. Whether or not a court decides anything. Whether or not a court convicts the rapist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
We sure don't need the courts we have. They don't work.
If you're rich, then yeah, sure get a lawyer. Likewise, if you're poor, then after the right to remain silent they tell you a lawyer will be appointed for you. But the public defenders only handle criminal cases.
Ordinary people settle things with street justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
1) Good faith: She obviously believed that she was raped regardless of the technical definition of rape.
2) Opinion: Unless the agent denies the particular facts, the qualification of the act as "rape" in common parlance is nothing more than a matter of opinion.
3) Fair comment on a matter of public interest: The TSA search procedures and the acts of a particular TSA agent in the performance of their duty is definitely a matter of public interest. Saying that the agent in question committed rape is a fair comment given what the agent did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
Innocent until proven guilty is still a legal basis in the United States. Just because someone tells an account of an event, does not mean the event happened exactly as the one person said.
Despite what your bias may be against TSA agents, they too have rights. Just as the woman claiming rape has the right to take her to court for it, so does the TSA agent have the right to take the woman to court for defamation. Which sounds like what she plans to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
That's horsecrap. You're living in fantasy-land.
Don't you read the news? People don't believe in that anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
It also means she too can be accused of a crime, slander. And it also means she can be taken to court. And it also means she could be convicted of slander.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
Of course. Anything can happen. But we are not discussing the wild hypotheticals that the universe might provide. We are talking about the merits of the defamation case. And in this case, it is quite likely that the case does not have much merit.
So can she be accused of slander? Absolutely. Is her action likely to result in her being convicted for slander? Pretty darn unlikely. That woman did not disseminate false information because in common parlance, what she went through can indeed be called rape. Because of that it is pretty darn unlikely that a defamation suit will go anywhere. Whether she presses charges or not and whether the agent is convicted or not is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
Correction
because in common parlance, what she claims she went through can indeed be called rape
You do understand that an accusation has to be proven to be considered true, right? I can make all sorts of wild claims and call someone a rapist but that doesn't make it true.
However the woman stated that she was raped by the agent. This is fact. The agent has not been proven guilty of the crime. This is fact. California civil code declares this slander. Read section 46.
http://digitaldefamation.com/california_defamation_law.htm
Fact. The only thing that is questionable in this case so far is the accusation of rape. If she was raped, file charges. Without that, statements that the agent committed this crime are clearly slander by the California civil code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
True, except there's no prosecution but a plaintiff, as this would be a civil case. There is no US nor California criminal defamation statute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
The appropriate standard is freedom of speech. TSA doesn't like it? Maybe they should teach their employees what the word respect means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technical definition
First off, good post. Good facts. Thanks.
But, while I tend to agree that this is over the line and against procedure and she deserves punishment, I am slow to catagorize it as rape.
A pelvic exam by a doctor is not a sexual act despite more penetration than this TSA agent, because it is for a purpose and doesn't gratify the penetrator. Same can be said of TSA agent.
I also am amazed by the amatureness of the letter from the TSA agent's law firm. I could do better with no legal training.
TSA ought to hire a better one rather than risk losing a precedent-setting case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
(2)performed by a licensed professional, and (3)is conducted for a health related purpose. If it is done without her consent you can believe it is a crime.
The TSA exam is done (1) under duress and threat, (2) performed by an unlicensed employee (TSA screeners have no professional or occupational license and are subject to no professional disciplinary boards, as are doctors), and (3) is done for the purpose of punishing those who opt out from the body scanners. (This according to TSA rank and file employees).
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. TSA screeners know they can be rough, rude, and abusive, and get away with it; they can have you fined or jailed if you complain or refuse. (And they have done so.) That's part of the big difference between the way you are treated by an ob/gyn and a TSO, and why there is a big difference between what happens in the Doctors office and at a TSA checkpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
Because it's a medical act, not a sexual act. Just because it involves genitals doesn't mean it's sexual. When the doctor checks you for a hernia, do you feel like you've had a sexual encounter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
The difference is consent. Check any college's web site on what is sexual assault.
The average TSO may not want to touch you, and take no pleasure from it. The fact remains that if he or she touches someone, anyone, deliberately and wilfully, in an intimate manner, on the job or off duty, in uniform or in ordinary street wear, at a checkpoint or anywhere else, without that persons consent, it is sexual assault.
As a practical matter, however, most DA's are not going to prosecute a TSO performing their "duty" as the TSO has the unlimited resources of the Federal Government to protect him in court. The TSA has the power to dismiss complaints without hearing. TSO's soon learn that they are "untouchable" and begin to regard passengers who complain and resent this sort of contact as trouble-makers who will not be tolerated. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Soon the TSO begins to think that there is nothing wrong in such intimate contact - he's just like a doctor! But to the passenger, nothing has changed - except that the assailant is wearing a uniform, a badege, and is above the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
If a doctor gives you a hernia "exam" or "pap smear" without your consent it certainly will have serious consequences for the "doctor".
On the other hand, if you consent to receive that "service", and your doctor/midwife consents to render it, there is no assault, because consent is a defense against battery. Your wife has her clients' consent; without it she cannot render services.
Even so, consent does not relieve the doctor/midwife/professional of liability for negligence, misfeasence, malfeasence, recklessness, or any other claim of misconduct, which is why ob/gyn malpractice insurance is so costly.
This is another difference between TSA and doctors. Doctors (and I presume midwives) carry professional liability insurance. TSOs do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
That may be, but that isn't what you said. You said "A pelvic exam is just as sexual an act as any other sexual contact".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
Seems to me more than a few doctors and dentists have lost their licenses for doing a "pelvic exam" while the patient was under anesthesia.
Another difference with the TSA - they don't use anesthesia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
Yeah, after specifying that in the case of it done with her consent, it's sexual. You still haven't retracted your statement that a pelvic exam is a sex act. Are you sticking by that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does almost count?
So are we any safer with less than fully thorough searches? But how many people are going to tolerate this level of search? I refuse to fly except when I absolutely have to now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does almost count?
John, don't take this the wrong way, but do you have a vagina? If not, then it is possible that your anecdotal experience is not a one to one comparison here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does almost count?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does almost count?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does almost count?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does almost count?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does almost count?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile in Guantanamo....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Oh yeah baby, search me good! Unh Unh Unh! Right there! Yes, yes, yes"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The US lost to terrorism. Shamefully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This overreaction can be calmed by drugs (mass media), but they're far too expensive and have nasty side effects (apathy, ignorance, insanity, and in extreme cases, death.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps they should be put to death?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Upset
I seriously fear going on a flight after reading this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upset
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upset
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They claim airplanes are a big target so we need all of this.
I would say that a terrorist attack on Capitol Hill would be a big target for the most impact on our psyche.
I think that we need to move all of this security theater to DC and push the Congresscritters into the same cattle herding we all go through.
I'm guessing they might want to skip the unproven radiation and would be offended at all of the feeling up going on.
If they want to represent us, they should have to live like us so they can understand the point of view of the people who elected them.
I'm pleased to see Mr. Randazza helping this woman fight this stupid lawsuit. He and I have several points of disagreement, but this is a case where the rights of the "little guy" need a strong fighter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have been trying to advocate this for a long time.
Healthcare, security measures, etc.
I even believe they should make no more than the average american makes, and have no benefits or retirement higher than the average american. No more special treatment. They have sure proven they don't deserve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We pay them enough that they should not be swayed by them, but humans by their nature are greedy. So its time to let them have their balls cupped by a high school grad with 2 weeks of training.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: That Anonymous Coward on Sep 6th, 2011 @ 12:16pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They want to fight fast, hard, and dirty, to prevent that from happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's pretty simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But I like the way you put it so much better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
whats the tsa policy on ms mary jane rottencrotch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
whats the tsa policy on ms mary jane rottencrotch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, you know what? You're right. It's all black and white. There is no grey in this world at all. Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Amazing watching you troll. Congratulations on having less of a life than the rest of us, who may be wasting our time, but at least with a sense of purpose and a measure of dignity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean, the $POLITICAL_PARTY have been ass-raping this country for years, yet nobody is filing charges against them for that specific act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Its not rape if you enjoy it. Obviously the populace of $NATION has been enjoying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can't prove your innocence in court. That's why it's Guilty/Not Guilty; not Guilty/Innocent. Our courts don't exist to be an absolute arbiter of truth and falsehood; our legal system ostensibly recognizes that what truly happened and what you can prove happened are often two very, very different things.
It's difficult to prove that someone was raped. Most rapes are not "stranger approaches woman in an alley and holds her at gunpoint while he rapes her" and even in those cases it's extraordinarily difficult to remove all reasonable doubt (which you must do in a criminal case) that at no point was consent issued.
And anyway, rape does not exist solely as a legal category. She doesn't need the validation of a court system to confirm that she was raped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Good comment, but I might correct you by saying that (in the sane states) it need only be proven that consent was at some point revoked. Giving consent and then rescinding it does not equal a license to rape (again, in the sane states).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's part of why I wish Mike hadn't included that line about the technical definition of rape. The definition of rape gets debated enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> system to avoid being convicted of defamation.
A person can't be convicted of defamation since defamation is not a crime. It's a civil wrong and civil wrongs don't result in convictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 46: Slander
46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:
1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
The woman admitted to slander. She declared the agent raped her despite the agent not having been indicted, convicted or punished for said crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> having been indicted, convicted or punished for said crime
Such an interpretation would seem to make it legally impossible to report a crime to the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have personal experience with this.....We were hit by a dump truck one time and though our car was messed up and we were injured and we had the description and license plate of the person that hit us the police would not report any crime. We tried to take them to court personally--guess what we were told "he said he did not do it--there was no damage on his truck (it was a Dump truck vs a car) and so we could not prove it." End of story. That was with our car being torn up and us having injuries. So according to your logic I can never say that I was hit by XYZ (don't remember the name now) dump truck because I could not "prove" it in a court of law....
Really that is what you are saying. That because some police officer would not take a report it never happened and I can't talk about it. Do you really want to live in that sort of a world where we are muzzled like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> You just can't go on your blog and claim
> someone raped you without something more
> than your opinion to back it up.
I don't recall seeing a police exception in the statute that was quoted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would opine that Moral turpitude was definitely occurring in this instance between the TSA agent and the searched woman. Which means that Defamation would be an extremely hard
For those wondering Moral turpitude describes conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals. And in this case a reasonable person would consider the search as depravity with respect to a person's duty to another or to society in general.
Also on your reasoning it would be defamatory for someone to state and/or publish that they have gone to the police to charge someone with a criminal offence and that the police have either not charged for whatever reason, or are still investigating.
In this case the woman has stated exactly what in her viewpoint has happened to her, who did it, what she tried to do about it, and what she was told by counsel on her own blog. This is the same, though admittedly with less evidential weight, as someone filming the incident and posting it online with a summary and/or transcript. That is not defamatory, and neither is what she has done here. (My other comment to you above in another thread states more)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since the TSA is a federal agency, California jurisdiction may not even apply, and even if it did they have no means to enforce their law on non-Californians.
As a public official, the agent has a much higher burden of proof. Proving slander against a public official is nearly impossible. Also, the blog comments could be considered a "fair comment on a matter of public interest", in which even a provably false statement cannot be considered slanderous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gotta love the people who equate the justice system with morality.
Pretty simple indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What would you think if I published in your local newspaper that "I was walking down the street in front of Jesse's house when he came out and sexually assaulted me", call it an op-ed, and had nothing to back it up with? Would you just let it sit, or would you take action? What would you think when all of your neighbors keep asking you why you sexually assaulted me?
Think about it. If the woman was raped, she needs to claim rape. If she isn't convinced enough to take legal action, why should she get to claim the crime in her blog? Is that truly fair?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really? If no one's convicted, there's no crime? Why hasn't the Justice Department figured this out, it would dramatically drop the crime rate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's pretty simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: file charges
Texas recently threatened to charge TSA employees for these actions. The Feds responded that they would shut down all air travel to Texas if that went ahead. Sadly, Texas backed down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So... how does Obama react when they do it to him or his kids?
That's crazy! How about the head of the TSA? Who searches him when he travels? I don't want to touch my bosses junk, but you would hope they wouldn't be exempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... how does Obama react when they do it to him or his kids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... how does Obama react when they do it to him or his kids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... how does Obama react when they do it to him or his kids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... how does Obama react when they do it to him or his kids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... how does Obama react when they do it to him or his kids?
However, congressman Ron Paul does, every time he goes through the airport.
The TSA agents deliberately single him out every single time he flies because he has been so vocal against their tactics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... how does Obama react when they do it to him or his kids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...the assault on her vagina and dignity..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rape indeed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm curious how this wouldn't meet the technical definition of rape. There is no warrant or reasonable suspicion to instigate a body cavity search. Without that sort of force of law, this is equivalent to one citizen penetrating another citizen, and one would hope that would at least qualify as a sexual assault if not out and out rape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, if the law were easy to understand we wouldn't need so many lawyers. It's reasonable to conclude that Miss Alkon, not being a legal expert, truly believed that what took place was rape, therefore no libel occurred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No stranger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vicki Roberts REST MY CASE
Lawyer’s website http://www.restmycase.com/
Her talent agency!
http://www.kismettalentagency.com/
Her IMDB is hilarious:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2399449/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2399449/bio
http:// www.imdb.com/name/nm2399449/#Self
My personal fave from it:
Michael Jackson Memorial (TV movie)
Herself - VIP audience (uncredited)
PR web:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/09/prweb553967.htm
Reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vicki Roberts REST MY CASE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why a surprise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Nearing the end of this violation, I sobbed even louder as the woman, FOUR TIMES, stuck the side of her gloved hand INTO my vagina, through my pants."
So now every time I grind with a woman on the dance floor at a club should I be concerned that she might accuse me of raping her?
I'm not saying that the exam was not excessively thorough but she chose to fly. If she didn't want to chance a body cavity search then she should not have flown or she should have chartered a private plane instead.
People need to stop whining about the TSA and start choosing another mode of transportation if they don't like the way the TSA operates their searches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, yeah, pretty much. Where ya been?
"People need to stop whining about the TSA and start choosing another mode of transportation if they don't like the way the TSA operates their searches."
Actually, choosing another way to travel is ALSO a way to protest the TSA, not an alternative to such. Most people can't afford that.
There are absolutely misdeeds being done by TSA agents, for any number of reasons; power trip, misunderstanding of the rules (deliberate or otherwise) or just plain old America incompetence. Calling them on it should be permitted. Right now, any attempt to do so is, to say the least, frowned upon. There have been numerous stories of people being pressured of outright threatened with jail for the act of filming the search of a relative, like a wife or child. The TSA permits such recording, but the agents insist this is not so, and have often demanded such recordings be turned over or destroyed.
There's been LOTS of cases of people deliberately attempting to to get a rise out of the TSA, in the hopes of just showing the video from a certain point. Those people are far more often jerks than really attempting to make a difference. Amy does not suffer fools gladly, so when it came to going to the airport, it was all but guaranteed she was gonna have a bad day.
"Keep your head down and shut up" should not be acceptable advice when dealing with the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I couldn't agree more. I used to fly my daughter out to us every Christmas. Now I rent a car and go pick her up. It's not as convenient and it actually costs about the same considering gas and time.
The drive is long (about 12 hours). It's not particularly exciting (Tennessee is a HELL of a long state to drive through, for the record). But I refuse to submit myself or her to an illegal search.
I know everyone cannot do the same, but there are likely enough who could if they were willing to stand up and say No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> Christmas. Now I rent a car and go pick her
> up. I refuse to submit myself or her to an
> illegal search.
I hate to tell you, but these TSA searches are expanding to train stations, bus stations, and yes, even private vehicle checkpoints. Little by little they're desensitizing people to the notion that they have no right to travel absent government inspection of their property and their person, to include their most intimate areas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: -- Trains and TSA
In reference to trains, I believe you are referring to the Savannah episode:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110401/17032413734/tsa-boss-naked-scanners-are-great- stopping-last-attack-dont-ask-about-next-one.shtml#c683
Note that in that case, as soon as the Amtrak police chief found out what was going on, he bounced the TSA. As part of his job, the Amtrak police chief is expected to know something about how trains work. And the key point is that trains are built on the same general scale as armored fighting vehicles, and are correspondingly hard to damage. They don't look heavy, because they ride smoothly on steel rails, but trains are very solidly built. One odd fact is that the standard required "coupler load," how strong a railroad car has to be, end to end, is 800,000 lbs. Obviously, this scale of construction gave the Amtrak police chief a certain standing to resist the TSA, which the airlines lack.
There have been some weird train accidents. In one case in the jungles of Southeast Asia, a bull elephant charged a train in defense of his herd, killing himself, but derailing the train. The train probably wasn't a very big train-- a lot of these little railroads in the jungle were built on narrow-gauge.
If Amtrak can somehow parley the widely prevailing hate and fear of the TSA into money for new trains, that will put Amtrak in the winner's circle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: -- Trains and TSA
> same general scale as armored fighting vehicles, and
> are correspondingly hard to damage.
Of course the searches at train stations are all the more ridiculous when you realize that if you wanted to destroy a train, you wouldn't even bother with trying to damage the car directly. Just remove a section of track or blow trestle 30 seconds before the train crosses it and that'll be all she wrote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: -- Trains and TSA
Bad accidents usually involve collisions between trains, or derailments off bridges or viaducts. Bayou Canot was one of the worst, because a couple of passenger cars got dumped in deep water, and they didn't float very well. And this happened because the bridge had gotten whomped by a lost barge tow-- the equivalent of a ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wreck
Then there are embankment collapses. Thousands or millions of tons of flood-water wash away thousands of tons of dirt, undermining the track for a considerable distance. Moving dirt on that scale, by human means, tends to involve many dozers and backhoes.
Really high speed trains, incidentally, are designed with very stiff couplers, with built-in "buffers," or shock absorbers, to keep them from jack-knifing, even in a derailment. The French TGV trains have occasionally derailed, without mass-casualties.
The one real safety concern of the railroads doesn't have to do with passengers at all. It has to do with "hazmats." From time to time, the railroads have to carry Hiroshima-quantities of chlorine; cyanide; benzine, and other solvents; and various liquid/gas fuels. The railroads have programs to establish contact with local police agencies and fire departments, and make sure they don't try to handle something like that on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: -- Trains and TSA
Or a bunch of ANFO. Not sure how easy that is to get hold of or make, but I'm guessing not prohibitive. The knowledge to use it effectively might be harder to come by, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A woman grinding with you has the ability to move away or indicate to you that she doesn't want to dance with you in that way -- unless you restrain her, in which case, yes, you are sexually assaulting her. A woman who is undergoing a TSA screening does not have the ability to tell the other party to stop.
(Also, yeah, it's possible to penetrate someone through their pants. Shallowly and uncomfortably, but I doubt the TSA agent cared on either count.)
I'm getting really tired of people saying that anyone complaining about the TSA just need to get a life or pick a different mode of transportation. Like it or not, air travel is the standard mode of covering a large amount of ground quickly. Everyone's standards and boundaries are different. Just because you don't feel violated after an "enhanced pat-down" does not mean everyone else feels the same. And more to the point, the increased security theater is resource-heavy, poorly implemented, and thus far there's been no convincing proof that it's actually making anyone safer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Citation needed.
At any time she could say, "STOP. I no longer consent to being touched by you. I wish to leave."
If the agent restrains her, prevents her from leaving the airport or takes any other action that forces her to continue to be searched, even through coercion or intimidation, then the woman should call the police, scream for help, etc.
Air travel is not a "right". Air travel is federally regulated. I do not agree with the regulations requiring me to be (potentially) searched without a warrant. So I don't fly.
Until the illegal searches are deemed so, then if you consent to them, that is your choice. If a specific agent goes beyond what is accepted and detailed in the search methods, then call the police and file charges against that agent right then.
Making accusations against the specific agent publicly is not the right way to make a stand. It changes nothing, and will likely put yourself in legal troubles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Citation needed.'
Yeap, she has same ability to tell the other party to stop as the secretary has the ability to tell her boss to stop when he starts groping her. Rape is clearly a commonly accepted description of the events that woman is describing. It's not the legal description and so the agent will probably not be convicted, but that doesn't make what that woman said slander. Please consider what you are saying for an instant. According to what you are saying, if a woman says somebody raped her, she files charges and the rapist is not convicted due to insufficient evidence, she would then be guilty of both slander and libel. There is no way that passes the First Amendment sniff test.
"Making accusations against the specific agent publicly is not the right way to make a stand. It changes nothing, and will likely put yourself in legal troubles."
Of course it changes something. That agent's life is most likely quite shaken up as it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, that is NOT allowed. As some of the previous stories on people being searched have noted, the TSA has made it clear that once a search starts, you are NOT allowed to walk away. The TSA claims that if you were allowed to stop the search, then terrorists could always just walk away until the day they get through.
Once you're selected for enhanced search, you are told you cannot leave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I asked if tried to leave if he would have the officer arrest me. He again said that no one was forcing me to stay. I looked him in the eye, and said, "then I'm leaving". He replied, "then we'll bring a civil suit against you", to which I said, "you bring that suit" and walked out of the airport."
http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html
I am unable to find policy that states if you refuse to undergo the screening and choose to leave you will be arrested. The TSA agent in the example asserted claims that were untrue. I could not find a report where the man was sued either.
I have never stated I support the searches. In fact I have repeatedly stated the opposite. I have been a strong civil libertarian for most of my life. If people are being forced against their will to be searched, these people need to be filing civil rights violation lawsuits.
My point related to your post is the TSA agent also has rights. The woman accusing her of rape has done so in a defamatory way. She should file criminal charges, submit her evidence and allow the TSA agent her defense.
But spreading lies that she is a rapist despite never even being charged with rape, and then suggesting that she has no rights to sue the accuser is ludicrous.
This is a destructive road. The stance you take because it seems on the surface to be against the TSA and their agents is actually a stance against your own rights. The ones you deny the agent will eventually denied to you.
You do not fight the destruction of the Constitution by tearing off your own piece of it in retaliation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA policy re arrest
Here it is:
"The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.
That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.
"Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave that process," says Sari Koshetz, regional TSA spokesperson, based in Miami.
Koshetz said such passengers would be questioned "until it is determined that they don't pose a threat" to the public.
Palm Beach Post
Saturday, Nov. 20, 2010
Telling the truth is not spreading lies. Identifying your assailant is not telling lies either. I hope the TSA agent tries to bring this to court. Then the real victim can file her own interogatories, supoena the video of the incident, etc. When the evidence is presented, who do you think the jury will believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
flying is a right-and the law
If you make a lawful purchase of anything, you have a right to what you have paid for. What makes you think otherwise?
As for filing charges, that sounds nice, but most people cannot afford the consequences-like missing their flight and being arrested. Police have no obligation to protect you, as the Supreme court has ruled. They might take your report-or they might take you to jail under arrest. It's happened. There is a youtube video of a woman molested by a TSA calling for a police officer. When the police arrived, did they take her report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: flying is a right-and the law
You have a right to walk where you want, ride a bicycle or possibly ride a horse.
It is also not "rhetorical hyperbole" as stated in the counter letter. The passenger is asserting that an actual criminal act occured -- that is defamation.
This is no more rape or assault than any pat down used by law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: flying is a right-and the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: flying is a right-and the law
"There is no right to fly, or drive a car; both are privileges and common law with respect to freedom of travel does not hold."
>>> Flying: 49 US Code-Section 40103 (2) "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
>>> Driving: 'The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.' (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;
"This is no more rape or assault than any pat down used by law enforcement."
>>> Law enforcement at least makes a pretense of probable cause. However, any pat down can be done for a lewd or lacivious purpose. Gotta wonder how often sexual assault occurs that we do not hear about. See the FBI's color of law offenses for more information.
>>> For more information on sexual assault, go to any university's web site.
>>> As for the TSA, it is common knowledge that the pat down is deliberately abusive to discourage passengers from opting out from TSA's $ 200,000 each scanners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am sorry, but this just sounds like something a rapist would say after a rape..."the victim deserved what she got because she was in the wrong place or was wearing the wrong clothing." It isn't right, regardless to the circumstances, and it really doesn't matter what the victim did.
And I hate to tell you this, but TSA is branching out to the other modes of transportation too. How long before we have random TSA inspections for people driving cars like they have for interstate checkpoints?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's see. Was the woman in question consenting to said grinding? If no, they yes, you are probably guilty of sexual assault. If she is consenting, then you are fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> search then she should not have flown
Wow. It's really come to this, has it? That in the minds of a not insignificant segment of the populace, having the government conduct cavity searches as the price of travel has become perfectly acceptable.
Jesus wept...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People need to stop whining about terrorists and wasting my tax dollars on the TSA, and start choosing another mode of transportation if they are sniveling wimps that can't fly without worthless TSA searches.
There, FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Bob on Sep 6th, 2011 @ 1:54pm
Only if you pull your cock out and rub her panties into her labiaz with it. I never gone done seen anyone do THAT on the dance floor!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Bob on Sep 6th, 2011 @ 1:54pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can we say "ivory tower bastard" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If she's grindng back, then you're probably okay. If she's pushing you away and you grab onto her and force yourself on her, then yes, it is a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notice that these stories keep coming and they keep getting worse. It's only when it comes down to getting the public ire up that TSA will even address the issue. Other than that they wait for the turmoil to die down and proceed on to ratchet up the abuse. Reminds you of the frog in the water on the stove.
Only when the public really gets riled about such stories does the TSA make any sort of comment. Then it is always, we're doing it by the book so it's ok, that's our job, or some such comment to say that jackbooting is just fine.
More and more are flying less and less if they have the choice. I suspect this was the real motivation behind the TSA to begin with and as usual, terrorism is the selling point. Police states would rather you not go places where it takes extra effort to keep track of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sounds very plausible
On her trip home, she set off the metal detector and told the TSA agent that it was probably the underwire in her bra. The TSA agent said she'd have to get a pat-down anyway. Alice requested the scan instead, and the agent immediately called over her supervisor -- a short, fat, "I was unpopular as a kid, but now I'm drunk on power" lout of a woman. This TSA "leader" was abrupt to the point of abusiveness. Had Alice not been traveling alone, this would have been prime video fodder to show the "quality" of the personnel working for the TSA. To quote one line from her very loud tirade, "You can either get a pat-down right now or I can walk you out of this airport right now."
Alice submitted to the pat-down, but she tried to keep an eye on her purse, phone, keys etc. which were sitting 20 feet away on the other side of the now-unattended scanner while dozens of passengers walked all around that area. After reprimanding Alice, the agent groping her finally yelled over to another agent in a mocking tone, "Can you get her stuff so we can get this done?"
They finally concluded (like the consummate security professionals they are) that it was the underwires in Alice's bra setting off the metal detector. Amazing!
Anyone traveling on a tight schedule or out of urgent need (as Alice was) knows the TSA has you over a barrel. They don't even have to fine you. Missing an $800 flight and potentially a day or two of travel time on a three day trip is a pretty effing steep fine for, "you just annoyed me but you have no avenue for appeal" abuse of authority.
If I had my way, the TSA would not only be abolished, but having TSA employment listed on your resume' would be the most shameful thing imaginable. This is a despicable organization. And don't give me crap about "not everyone who works there is like that". The stain of TSA incompetence and abuse is prevalent throughout the organization. Anyone who associates themselves with the TSA in any way should be deeply, deeply ashamed. It's. That. Bad.
Oh, by the way, during that trip Alice traveled both directions, through four checkpoints before remembering after the last one that she was carrying a large maximum strength canister of pepper spray (twice as strong as issued to law enforcement). But, as God is their witness, the TSA found the underwires in her bra and made sure she knew THEY were in charge and that Alice was in the category of "little people". Bravo! We can rest easy -- eight BILLION dollars a year in TSA funding is money being well-spent. Not a dime of fraud, waste, or abuse in that budget!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This sounds very plausible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this case in particular, applying the criminal standard seems outrageous, since Alkon can reasonably understood to be complaining that the government has decided to permit and immunize conduct that should (and in other circumstances would) be classified as rape or sexual assault. To permit a defamation suit under those circumstances is to say, in effect, that the government may bar people from naming an abuse of power, simply by immunizing itself from prosecution for that abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With civil liberty, comes civil responsibility. You cannot separate the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually that's not true. If you are actually lying about the facts, that is in fact defamation. If you are calling "rape" what the law calls something else, that is not defamation.
"If the person does not have to to prove anything truly happened to them, then they could just accuse everyone they wanted to of rape."
You know, just because the crime of which you are accused is accusing someone else of a crime does not reverse the presumption of innocence. If I am prosecuted for defaming a TSA agent and accusing them of rape, I am also presumed innocent during the proceeding and it is up to the prosecutor to prove that I did not tell the truth. Think about how silly what you are proposing is: If I take the stand and say that someone did something illegal and that person is not convicted, I would then have to prove that I did not lie on the stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If someone starts telling the world I am a rapist, and I have not even been charged with rape, then my proof of defamation is I have not been convicted of rape. I do not have the burden of proof upon me to prove the statement that I am a rapist is in fact not true.
The person calling me a rapist has to prove that I am if they want their claim to be true and thus not defamatory.
That would require filing rape charges against me, presenting the evidence and winning a conviction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are contradicting yourself. If what you said was true, then the person saying that you raped them would be guilty of defamation until they proved themselves to be innocent by proving your guilt. That would of course be an absurd and unconstitutional situation and that is thankfully not how the justice system works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Defamation is for provably false statements. If you can't prove it it's not defamation. Last I looked criminal trials do not prove innocence only guilt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is no prosecutor in a civil tort case. There is a plaintiff and a defendant.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not needed, all that is needed is preponderance of the evidence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your proposition completely neuters our civil liberties, because it means that we cannot classify ANYTHING as illegal without launching a lawsuit in connection with that claim. Are you really so dense you can't imagine how that would chill all kinds of speech in a massive way?
For example, under your system, I can't criticize the government about their illegal wiretapping on millions of Americans without PERSONALLY suing the government all by myself (even though I may have no standing to do so, and, by virtue of being a secret program, have little power to collect the evidence). Nor can I call America's many wars "illegal wars". And hell, you can't even discuss the very issue of defamation because, by incorrectly classifying someone's legal speech as defamation, you may be committing defamation yourself. Catch-22!
Luckily, you don't have the faintest idea of what you're on about, but it's still scary that your type is out there breeding. You're especially dangerous because your type thinks they're very kind and reasonable ("taoareyou"), when, in fact, you suffer from a terrible brand of aggressive zealotry diametrically opposed to the democratic principles enshrined in the constitution, and you don't even realize it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm NOT condoning it at all, just trying to get an idea of what happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you had to watch as some government lackey ran her fingers around, on top of and inside her genitals.
Just to look for a bomb that isn't there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amy Alkon
TSA attracts misfits that delight in abusing their piece of authority by harassing. molesting and humiliating the people they are supposed to be protecting.
In the wake of 9/11 Congress gave DHS carte blanche to do whatever they want to the American people. The result is that the department has assaulted their own citizens and carried out crimes against humanity and the Constitution.
This has culminated in TSA digitally strip searching and reaching into the pants of children all without any accountability. It is no wonder TSA complaints are up 40% over last year. This is unacceptable and those responsible must be held accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I say this without in any way trying to diminish Ms. Alkon's experience. My experience was clearly more boring and far less intimate than hers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what's the best way to find a terrorist?
I would never knowingly harm another human being or encourage others to do so. But if I were to come upon a TSA agent burning to death, I wouldn't even try pissing on him to put out the fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA Abuse
I say --and I am serious--let's all learn how to fart. Fart out loud frequently and loudly while being molested by the TSA agents. Then blush and say "excuse me." Say,"When someone touches my genitals I can't help but fart!" It is as good a strategy as I can think of to fight back!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA is a criminal, out-of-control agency
http://www.travelunderground.org/index.php?threads/master-lists-of-tsa-abuses-crimes.317/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defense is Grasping
The problem with this, is there was no rhetorical hyperbole in this statement. She accused the defendant with a direct crime. No "literary license" was taken here. It's a straight up accusation of sexual rape. This is covered clearly in California civil code:
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 46: Slander
46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:
1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,convicted, or punished for crime;
2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office,
profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits
She is falsely charging the agent with a crime. She isn't using metaphor, she isn't being poetic. This is not free speech, this is slander. Slander is not protected speech and is prohibited in California.
I say falsely because the agent has not been proven guilty. She hasn't even been legally charged with a crime. Making an accusation, even if you believe that accusation to be true personally, does not make it true for the rest of the world.
You simply cannot try to destroy the life of someone because you "feel" like you have been wronged. If you are raped or assaulted, you take them to court, present the evidence and seek a conviction.
If this is not considered slander, then any person can accuse someone else of rape with absolutely no proof whatsoever. Should someone who is unhappy with you be allowed to spread lies about you? Should they be able to tell everyone you are a rapist. Should they be allowed to publish accusations that you are a rapist online where everyone can read them?
Without slander laws holding people accountable for what they state as fact, you cannot stop them. You have no choice but to let your reputation and your career be destroyed.
Remember the Duke Lacrosse team? Do you remember all the torment they went through before it was finally revealed that they were falsely accused?
Every person deserves the right to defend themselves in court.
I believe the woman who claimed she was raped has the same rights. But her rights do not trump the agent's rights. If the agent committed a crime, she should be held accountable.
If the accuser has committed slander, she too, should be held accountable. I see a lot of bias against TSA agents and a lot of unsupported claims. I really expect more from the Techdirt community to be honest.
I do not believe the searches are legal. If you don't, then do not consent. If that means you don't fly, then don't fly. Nobody ever said that standing up for your rights was easy.
I don't think most of the TSA agents are bad people. Certainly there are some on power trips and certainly there are some that go beyond what they should. Those who do should have their actions prosecuted. If you just cop out and say "well it won't work, the courts suck" etc. then you are responsible for allowing it to continue just as much as the TSA agents are for just "dong their jobs". You both accept it and refuse to question.
Authority is not some magical force. Authority is given by the people. YOU. You as citizens bestow authority and you as citizens can revoke it.
Stop electing people to office that choose to violate your rights. Stop electing people to office that want to trample on the Constitution. Stop accepting that you have to just go along. Stand up. Speak out. Educate people. Let them know they do have a say in their government.
I apologize for repeating myself so much :) I just hate seeing smart people with a mob mentality. I hate seeing people willing to strip the rights of others in order to give them to someone else. When the truth is, we ALL have the same rights. Taking rights away from anyone, even someone you don't like only hurts us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defense is Grasping
"As in other jurisdictions, California law permits the defense of substantial truth and would absolve a defendant even if she cannot 'justify every word of the alleged defamatory matter; it is sufficient if the substance of the charge be proved true, irrespective of slight inaccuracy in the details.' . . . Minor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity so long as 'the substance, the gist, the sting, of the libelous charge be justified.' Heuer v. Kee, 15 Cal. App. 2d 710, 714(1936)." Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 517 (1991).
Similarly:
"A commentator who advocates one of several feasible interpretations of some event is not liable in defamation simply because other interpretations exist. Consequently, remarks on a subject lending itself to multiple interpretations cannot be the basis of a successful defamation action because as a matter of law no threshold showing of 'falsity' is possible in such circumstances. See Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485, 512-13, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 1966, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984)." Hunter v. Hartman, 545 N.W.2d 699, 707 (1996).
The gist, the sting of the blogger's charge, which she describes in specifics, is that she was inappropriately manhandled. Whether you agree that what was described is "rape" or not, you understand what the writer is saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Defense is Grasping
This is not something that could be interpreted as a euphemism for being groped. When you tell someone that you were raped it doesn't leave people speculating as to what happened. It is a serious accusation for a serious crime. In fact, aside from murder it's probably one of the most horrible acts that one human can impose on another.
Because of this, the effect of being accused of rape is paramount and rightly so...IF you are guilty of rape.
The problem with this case is the woman made NO effort to file charges. The woman simply took her name, screamed YOU RAPED ME and went on about her business. She contacted one lawyer, who didn't feel she had a case.
She then took it upon herself to name the TSA agent and make public statements that she was raped by the agent. She did this verbally and in writing.
Again, this wasn't some metaphor or a statement of opinion such as "I felt as if I was raped". It was a very clear and distinct accusation of a crime. The proper course was to file criminal charges. THIS is how you legally accuse someone of a crime. NOT in a blog.
The TSA Agent's name is being associated with rape despite no rape conviction OR EVEN LEGAL CHARGES of rape.
You believe she should be denied the right to have this cleared. You choose to ignore defamation laws that specifically address false accusations of crimes. You wish for the TSA Agent to have no rights to defend herself simply because you wish to believe the accusations against her.
Will this come to pass? I truly hope not. And when it comes to the time that you get falsely accused of a crime you didn't commit, I will stand for your rights to defend against defamation as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Defense is Grasping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Defense is Grasping
She was in LA.
Upon leaving, still sobbing, I yelled to the woman, "YOU RAPED ME." And I took her name to see if I could file sexual assault charges on my return.
She boarded her plane, flew to Birmingham, the from there went to New York. She attended a conference. She came back home. She called a single lawyer who wouldn't take her case.
Not once does she say she tried to call the police. Not once did she say she attempted to file charges and the police said no, you cannot.
No, you aren't interested in the facts. Like so many people reading this, you just want to believe the defamatory accusations of Ms. Alkon. Who is a syndicated columnist, author, and blogger. I don't know how many readers she has, but I'm sure their reactions are similar to those here.
People read her blog and believe that she was sexually raped by the TSA agent. This is an unproven accusation and is therefore false. Ms. Alkon made NO attempt to file charges.
Wake up. Don't let others think for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defense is Grasping
People read her blog and believe that she thinks she was raped by the TSA.
Unproven != False
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Defense is Grasping
I know horribly well the pain and aggravation caused by false rape allegations as a late friend of mine was falsely accused of rape. The charges were eventually dropped. This, amongst other things, more than likely contributed to his later suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Defense is Grasping
This is not something that could be interpreted as a euphemism for being groped.'
Given the fact that rape is used as a euphemism for just about any and all perceived personal violations, that is clearly something that could be interpreted as a euphemism for being groped.
"It was a very clear and distinct accusation of a crime."
Her blog post clearly described the events which she said happened and she called the actions of the TSA agent "rape". As such, she did not make a "very clear and distinct accusation of a crime" any more than liberals make a "very clear and distinct accusation of a crime" when they say Republicans are "raping" Obama. The only thing that matters here is not whether "rape" was legally constituted and proved in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt. What matters for the purposes of the defamation lawsuit is whether the specific acts that the woman accused the TSA agent of are shown to be false or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defense is Grasping
1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,convicted, or punished for crime;
The above is how I think you are reading the code. Look carefully. It it different from the actual code.
If she had stated that agent has been charged or convicted of rape, that would be false, but she is quite clear that she is describing her version of an event and that despite her wishes, the agent has not been charged. That is the truth.
You don't seem to understand how hard it is to get criminal charges filed against a federal agent. It is so rare there's probably less then 5 cases in the last 50 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Defense is Grasping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Defense is Grasping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oops, not so fun when standards of evidence cut both ways, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
>clogging the crap out of an already bloated court system
She isn't clogging anything, because she hasn't filed a suit. Seems you forgot that part in your little fit of e-anger. DERP!
There will never be a time where our courts are finally unclogged, so are you saying that only "really rapey rapes" should be prosecuted? How rapey should a rape be before the raped charge the rapists? Only violent alley rapes, but not date rapes? Maybe limit ourselves only to gangrapes of underage girls in highschool parking lots? That one was awfully rapey, surely it was important enough to be granted attention from our awfully busy system. However, for the less rapey rapes, due process will have to wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look TSA lady if you are fine with what your procedure required you to do say so and that is the end of it. You are not likely to be prosecuted and punished by the law--the TSA has claimed law enforcement like immunity from prosecution. Oh, well you don't like people knowing that you put your hands all the way up into someone's genitals--get a different job. If you are going to tell me "don't like it don't fly." Then I am going to tell you "don't like the publicity, get another job."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For those saying "File charges"
If you think that the victim can easily file charges against a TSA agent then you have never known anyone who tried to. It is nearly impossible to do so. If you do, you can expect retaliation every time you try to fly--I say try because it is quite likely they will put you on a "watch list" and make your life as difficult as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone should post the TSA's personal names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double Standards
If some slimy authoritarian pussbag wants to finger passengers against their will, then let the name be known to all, and let it properly suffer.
-No sympathy, no double standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE file charges
The whole TSA idea was to make us safer, from what?
Life is fatal folks, sorry to tell ya, but it is, 100%. Yes we can minimize risk, but how far?
I have read the Constitution several times, and the bill of rights, I have yet to see the "right" of "public safety". Security in your home and possessions, yes, but not in public as far as I can discern.
If your "right" to safety infringes on my right to privacy, maybe YOU should stay home.
the Idea that a position of authority can do no wrong is absurd, Power corrupts, and the TSA power corrupts absolutely.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/09/06/female-blogger-threatened-with-a-defamation-suit- for-blogging-about-tsa-rape/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorists must be so proud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA has lost it
If there is a bomb, there will be a really long line of maimed travelers (and TSA agents).
I am glad that at least our true guardians of our freedom and the law (police, national guard, coast guard, military, etc) are trained in proper bomb detection and destruction.
And oh yeah... Bombarding a possible bomb carrier with high frequency radiation is also absurd.
If the TSA really believed that a passenger is carrying a bomb, I can't imagine that they'd be poking and prodding rather than running and hiding (or at least wearing a bomb protection suit).
Unless... of course... it's all a money game. I mean who does own the company that received the 100+ million dollar contract for the scanners/procedures/etc. Not the former head of the DHS...? Nah... couldn't have been him...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA has lost it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA has lost it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't imagine this going to court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is about the first amendment, not rape laws
What is in question here is whether or not it is defamation to name and shame the TSA agent for what she did. Given that she has at no point disputed Amy's version of events, only complained about the actions she took I don't feel that she has a leg to stand on. It is Amy's first amendment right to state her opinions of the facts as loudly and at a whatever length she pleases. If the TSA agent says that she's lying about what happened then she can make a case for defamation. Until then this is just more constitution trampling bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is about the first amendment, not rape laws
In this case, she is claiming she was sexually raped when she has not presented any evidence to that fact and never even attempted to file charges or even contact the police.
When the TSA agent contacted a lawyer, and they decided to file defamation charges, that is a legal response to Ms.Alkon's accusation. And that response is, you are lying.
It will be up to Ms. Alkon to prove she was raped for her statement to be true. She can't say, well I feel like I was raped. That is not what her blog says or what she has been telling people or what she screamed out at the airport before going on with her plans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is about the first amendment, not rape laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is about the first amendment, not rape laws
She is claiming defamation. This is a legal response to the accusation. In fact it is the ONLY way she can legally respond because her accuser did not file charges against her. A defamation claim is saying that Thedala Magee is calling Ms. Alkon a liar. She disputes the claim that she raped Ms. Alkon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is about the first amendment, not rape laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The TSA is raping America
"Fearful". A word I would never before have associated with an American citizen in regard to our government. That only happened in foreign governments with dictators and military regimes.
People who speak out for Liberty have always been the ones we read about in the history books—the ones we look up to.
Thank you for speaking out for my liberty, Amy Alkon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amy Alkon? Really?
If her allegations are true, I certainly hope she prevails. Still this is the kind of case where I'm rooting for injuries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The TSA is raping America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA perverts
They violate the 1st Amendment by placing protesters in cages, banning books like “America Deceived II” and censoring the internet.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns.
They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by molesting airline passengers.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars for foreign countries.
Impeach Obama, vote for Ron Paul.
(Last link of Banned Book):
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000190526
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rights and duties
The 4th Amendment guarantees all of us protection against unreasonable searches. What is unreasonable? Anything capricious, abritrary, extraordinary, unusual, or without reason (probable cause). That pretty much describes the "enhanced" pat down.
Some people say that we "give up" our rights when we buy a ticket. They forget that rights are inalienable; that is, something that cannot be given up, bought or sold. We may chose to consent to an unreasonable search, but it cannot be a condition of a contract, and we still retain the right to say no.
By the way, this policy of routinely violating the 4th amendment rights of passengers at airports may place TSA in conflict with The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 14141 ("Section 14141").
This authorizes the Attorney General to conduct investigations and, if warranted, file civil litigation to eliminate a "pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers ... that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."
That's not all. In many states, when a third party interferes with the performance of a contract (your ticket is evidence of a contract between you and the airline) they may be liable for "Tortious interference."
A final point. Interfering with an individual's rights constitutes a nuisance. When a government agency unreasonably interferes with the rights of the public this constitutes a public nuisance. "A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with the public's right to property. It includes conduct that interferes with public health, safety, peace or convenience."
Passengers have rights. TSA has duties. Among their duties is to obey the constitution, not to violate it.
For more information, contact the National Association of Airline Passengers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only thing I have to add to this conversation is a bit of experience.
I've been assaulted and sexually abused on more than one occasions. In some cases it was my exhusband. It one case it was a stranger.
I've also been robbed numerous times.
Not once when I sought help was I ever. Ever. afforded a report, a lawyer, a judge. Anything. I was shushed and pushed away. I was a single mother. I had no money.
I'm married now, happy, and have a steady income. We're military.
We got robbed.
And for the first time there was an officer who took me seriously enough to take a report and promise to try to pursue the situation.
So.
She was told it was a "no-starter". I've heard things like that before.
The law doesn't uphold the people as much as idealists would like the believe. And that's just a sad, bitter truth.
Speaking out is in many cases a first step to getting justice. And if her blog was the only way to do it, then more power to her. And even better that people actually listened to her blog. Not everyone is so lucky as that, in this world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next time you fly....
The goal of every airline passenger should be to let the TSA know that they are sick of being treated like criminals and being violated by government decree. This is a protest that they can not stop. We have the right to speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next time you fly....
The goal of every airline passenger should be to let the TSA know that they are sick of being treated like criminals and being violated by government decree. This is a protest that they can not stop. We have the right to speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sexual Assault
"In its simplest definition, sexual assault is unwanted sexual contact."
"Although these definitions seem clear, people are often confused as to whether they have been sexually assaulted or not, or even if they have been raped or not..."
"In many cases, survivors may feel that because they were not seriously hurt physically, it wasn’t really rape. This is not true. ANY sexual contact forced upon you by someone against your will is illegal, against the UCLA Student Code of Conduct and against UCLA University Policy. It is illegal and wrong..."
"Although people typically think of a man assaulting a woman, rape and sexual assault occur between people of the same-sex as well."
FBI's website on Color of Law Abuses says the following:
"Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply."
Common reactions to sexual assault as per Virginia Tech's website:
"Every person reacts differently to traumatic experiences; there is no "right" reaction to a sexual assault. Below are examples of possible reactions to sexual assault.
Shock, disbelief, numbness, withdrawal
Preoccupation with thoughts and feelings about the assault
Unwanted memories, flashbacks, and/or nightmares
Intense emotions: anger, fear, anxiety, depression
Physical symptoms: sleep disturbance, headaches, stomach aches
Inability to concentrate, lower grades
Fears about safety
Feelings of guilt and shame
"Sexual assault is motivated by hostility, power, and control. Clinical studies of offenders find that sexual assaults are not motivated by a biological desire."
Many people who experience sexual assault are in a profound state of shock and may not be capable of contacting authorities and pressing charges, especially when the perp is one of the authorities. The authorities may not want to fight the system they are part of. As a victim, you have rights, but the government may, and often does, ignore those rights.
The National Association of Airline Passengers is working to reform Federal and State laws to bring accountability to the TSA. See our website for more information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defamation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anti-SLAPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evidence of Defamation
Google Julian Assange rape. You will find articles saying rape claims, accused of rape, and questioning the charges of rape as an anti-wikileaks plot.
By reading articles on the Net, a LOT of people question the rape charges against Assange yet Thedala Magee is assumed to be guilty.
You don't like the actions of the TSA. Many people don't, including me. That doesn't mean that Thedala Magee, because she works for the TSA, can automatically be assumed guilty of rape just because she is accused.
I don't know that she isn't guilty. But until she is convicted of rape charges in court, I will assume she is innocent and will not proclaim she is a rapist. I do the same for Assange. I do the same for anyone where I do not have personal knowledge of the events.
However the actions of Ms.Alkon are defamatory. Thedala Magee's name has been now smeared worldwide. The story has been picked up by major websites such as Forbes. The lawyer for Thedala Magee will have thousands of pages of evidence showing posts where people, based on the unproven claims of Ms. Alkon, believe her to be a rapist.
There is a HUGE double standard here because of the bias against the TSA. If you choose not to see it because you want to accept Ms.Alkon's account as absolute fact without the slightest need for evidence or prosecution, then you too are evidence that defamation has in fact occurred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evidence of Defamation
If defamation has occurred it was not done by Ms. Alkon's likely truthful description of the events surrounding that day. I am willing to believe Ms. Alkon because of the testimonies of hundeds of people at the hands of the TSA. If Ms. Alkon's statements were the only example I had of sexual abuse by a TSA agent, and I was basing my entire opinion only on her statements then yes you could argue that. However, I have read hundreds of statements of the rampant sexual abuse that occurs daily at TSA check points. I have great distrust and disgust for anyone who is associated with them. So if Ms. Magee has been defamed it was by her own choice to remain employed by an agency engaged in such abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evidence of Defamation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Evidence of Defamation
I am no longer surprised that we are losing our rights. It's not because some powerful shadow government force is taking them from us. It's because we are just throwing them away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence of Defamation
Yes, they have private areas for screening.
Yes, the TSA has forcibly disrobed at least one passenger, exposing her breasts in public.
Yes, TSA claimed in court recently that they have the authority to strip search.
The TSA makes their own claims about what they are allowed to do. Don't come crying to me if I tell you what they have said about themselves.
By the way, rape and sexual assault do not require force - the threat of force is sufficient. Penetration through clothing is rape - check the law. There are plenty of creditable reports of this against the TSA. It doesn't even make the headlines anymore.
People don't lose their rights by throwing them away. People always lose their rights through fraud, deception, force and violence by government. It's called usurpation. Even when the abuses are common knowledge, however, the government always has torries, who seek to justify government abuses and say its the victims fault. Disgusting.
TSA has acquired in a short time a reputation for Theft and Sexual Assault. Maybe that's because they are stealing from and assaulting passengers on a daily basis. Some of it hits the headlines. A lot of it does not.
TSA doesn't have to be a hateful agency to do its job. But power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When the TSA doesn't see anything wrong in what they are doing, they have become absolutely corrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence of Defamation
As far as us throwing our rights away--I am not the one defending a TSA agent who at minimum sexually assaulted a woman. We know that because the pat down was not disputed at all and a TSA pat down by definition includes sexual assault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evidence of Defamation
Right. Are you also willing to believe every man accused of rape is also guilty because of the testimonials of THOUSANDS of women who have been raped by men? Thousands of women have been raped by men. Therefore all men accused of rape are guilty.
I can't find hundreds of rape accusations against TSA agents. But hey, this TSA agent MUST be a rapist because you don't like the TSA and you have heard bad things about other TSA agents. So ALL TSA agents must be guilty of whatever unproven accusations are hurled at them.
[Sarcasm for effect to follow, don't prove yourself to be an idiot and believe what follows to be my opinion]
Serves the bitch right for taking a government job instead of getting on welfare. Right? We will teach those TSA bastards! Let's defame the citizens that are employed by the TSA! Hell yeah! It doesn't matter what that sorry ass woman's rights are! We gotta take a stand! Since you didn't quit your job, you're a rapist! TAKE THAT!!
By taking away the rights of TSA workers we are standing up for the rights of our citizens!!!!
Oh shit. Those TSA workers are citizens...crap. We just took away our own rights too. Goddammit.
/sarcasm
Your logic really sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evidence of Defamation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evidence of Defamation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem here is not defamation. The problem is that the TSA boasts of its authority to act in open defiance of the constitution and common decency, instructs its employees to violate laws against sexual assault. Ms Alkon has not defamed anyone. The TSA has defamed itself, and all those who wear its uniform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Using Techdirt Logic Applied here
TSA worker accused of rape.
TSA worker must be guilty because other TSA agents have been abusive.
File sharer uses bittorrent.
File sharer is accused of infringement.
Since other torrents have infringing content, ALL Torrents have infringing content and therefore, since you used a torrent, you must be infringing.
In fact, we say you are infringing and will contact your place of work and let them know you have been illegally downloading copyrighted materials. We will publish your name on our website. We will spread the word so all potential employers in the future will know you are guilty of infringement.
You can do nothing. We do not have to prove our claims. You used a torrent, you are assumed guilty. Tough luck. You should have known better than to use a torrent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here
TSA worker works for the TSA.
ADD: TSA has a policy of Sexually Assaulting passengers.
ADD: TSA worker follows policy and assaults passenger.
ADD: TSA workers actions recorded on video tape.
TSA worker accused of rape.
ADD: TSA worker admits to sexual assault and following TSA policy.
Change: TSA worker must be guilty because she admits to the act, it is recorded on video, and victim/witness is credible, and actions are in accordance with TSA policy.
New sentance: Other TSA agents have been abusive.
New sentance: The government can accuse you without proof of infringement. You cannot accuse the government of anything even if you have proof from their own mouths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here
Citation needed. I have not seen any TSA policy authorizing sexual assault. In my opinion this is an illegal search, and also one you can refuse to consent to. Nobody has presented evidence that anyone has ever been held down and searched against their will or arrested for not consenting to being searched.
Your claim that sexually assaulting people is policy is simply an outright falsehood. It's an attempt to characterize a a search as a sexual act. These TSA agents, despite what you want to believe, are not doing this for sexual reasons. And they are only touching those who consent to the search.
It harms the fight for civil rights to try and sensationalize the searches as sexual assaults. It detracts from the truth, that they are illegal searches by focusing on a lie.
In prisons, there are much more intrusive searches. Those are not sexual assault either. Nobody characterizes them as such. Body cavity searches are not sexual assaults either. The TSA searches are not sexual assaults. They are illegal searches. Focus on the truth. Trying to make it into something it's not just for the emotional pull will fail in the end, and the position against the searches will be weaker for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here
As far as consent goes...
Tell you what next time you go to the airport you go ahead and don't consent to the search and see what happens next--my bet is that you will be at minimum kept from flying likely will be arrested on a BS charge like disorderly conduct.
If person has non consensual contact with a person's sexual organs, even if they do not have sexual intent in the contact, they can still be charged with sexual assault. That is the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here
Actually, it is possible to sexually assault someone without doing so for sexual reasons. As for consenting to the search, that claim is absurd. Those people have consented to flying on an aircraft. The government has decided that consenting to flying on a commercial aircraft is equivalent to consenting to a search. So no, those people have not actually consented to such a search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here
The needs of the many—the common people of this country—to have their privacy and civil rights respected above all else—outweigh the needs of the few—the government organizations who seek to strip them from us for their own gain. Or the one—the corrupt government that allows them to do this. When injustice has been done, the only logical course of action is to oppose it, in whatever form it is possible to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here
Let me help you with that, then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here
Could you give me a specific link where a person was arrested specifically for not agreeing to be searched? Not an arrest where they become belligerent and have to be removed. One where they were charged with not submitting to the search.
Thank you. Your Google search link didn't provide any actual facts. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here
"Police claimed that Abbott was taken to jail because she refused to calm down, yelling and swearing at officials.
She "told me in a very stern voice with quite a bit of attitude that they were not going through that X-ray," airport security officer Sabrina Birge told police. "
What country do we live in where someone can be arrested for yelling or using a "very stern voice"? Are you defending this?
"The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.
That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest."
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-11-20/business/sfl-airport-scans-pat-downs-refual- 20101121_1_tsa-airport-checkpoint-sari-koshetz
"Tyner was simultaneously thrown out of San Diego International Airport on Saturday morning for refusing to submit to a security check and threatened with a lawsuit and a $10,000 fine if he left. "
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/14/tsa-ejects-oceanside-man-airport-refusing-securi ty/
Is that sufficient?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here
Actually there is something that I can do. I can prove that what you said was wrong. I can prove that you have no evidence whatsoever that corroborates the facts that you allege.
A more accurate comparison would be: You commit copyright infringement. Hundreds of people see you and you admit to having committed copyright infringement. The RIAA issues a press release calling you a "thief" but never sues because they don't believe they would recover enough to make up for the cost of trial. Are we suing the RIAA for inaccurate use of legal terminology?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here
Really? I'm not going to take you to court. I am just going to accuse you of infringement. Where are you going to prove me wrong? On your blog? are you going to call the thousands of people (and all the others in the future that read my blog) and show them the proof?
You wouldn't possibly consider taking me to court would you? You would not ask that I take down my slander would you? After all, I have freedom of speech and can say you committed a crime and you should have no recourse.
Good luck with that. It won't matter a bit if you are innocent and you can prove it if I don't take you to court and you aren't allowed to sue me for defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headline change
Alleged TSA Rapist Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Sexual Molestation 'Rape'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>>> The policy on pat-downs is well known and has been experienced by anyone who has opted out.
The TSA has begun using an "enhanced" pat-down procedure for those who would rather not subject themselves to a full-body scan.
"To call it a pat-down is a euphemism," said a spokesman for the ACLU in Massachusetts. Previously, TSA screeners were required to use the back of their hands when searching sensitive regions. The enhanced pat-down rules allow them to use their palms and fingers to feel, twist, squeeze, and prod passengers.
Your claim that sexually assaulting people is policy is simply an outright falsehood.
>>> No, it's an outright truth which people like yourself have difficulty facing.
It's an attempt to characterize a a search as a sexual act.
>>>Sexual assault is...
A broad term that encompasses any forcible sexual activity that occurs without the victim's consent.
A range of behaviors that include, but are not limited to, unwanted kissing and fondling, forcible vaginal, oral, or anal intercourse, forcible vaginal, oral or anal penetration with an object or a finger.
These TSA agents, despite what you want to believe, are not doing this for sexual reasons.
>>> Sexual assault is:
A way for the perpetrator to exert power and control, not about "out of control" sexual desire.
And they are only touching those who consent to the search.
>>> They are touching those who they chose. Consent under duress is no consent at all.
It harms the fight for civil rights to try and sensationalize the searches as sexual assaults.
>>> It harms the fight for civil rights to ignore sexual asault under color of law and pretend it really isn't sexual asault.
It detracts from the truth, that they are illegal searches by focusing on a lie.
>>> Are you smoking something?
In prisons, there are much more intrusive searches. Those are not sexual assault either.
>>> A strip search in prison is less intrusive - when done properly there is no contact.
Nobody characterizes them as such.
>>> By nobody do you mean the FBI? See their color of law abuse page.
Body cavity searches are not sexual assaults either.
>>> If they are done without consent and with no probable cause they surely are.
The TSA searches are not sexual assaults.
>>> If they touch you in the private areas without your consent they sure are. Consent given under duress is not consent at all.
They are illegal searches.
A stopped clock is right 2x a day.
Focus on the truth.
>>> The truth is something you seem unwilling to face.
Trying to make it into something it's not just for the emotional pull will fail in the end, and the position against the searches will be weaker for it.
>>> Trying to pretend that sexual assault isn't happening is delusional. The position against unreasonable searches will not get any stronger if we tolerate these most unreasonable of all "searches".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I go to the airport, and they tell me, I must be searched in order to fly, I turn away and leave. There is no threat of physical harm or arrest. There is no duress. Sure, I want to fly and I want not to be searched. But the fact is that is currently not an option.
If I say, fine you can search me. I have consented. The TSA agent is not doing this because they are a sexual predator hiding behind regulations. It's because that is what they have been trained to do in their search for weapons. This is not sexual assault. It is an illegal search, but not an assault.
For example, a body cavity search is drastically more invasive than the TSA searches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_cavity_search
However they are NOT deemed sexual assault. They are not performed to give pleasure for being in a position of power or for sexual gratification. They are to find illegal substances and weapons.
The TSA searches are invasive and a violation of our 4th amendment rights, but they are not sexual assault.
If the TSA agent forced her fingers into the woman's vagina then the woman should have called the police. It is not the policy of the TSA to sexually assault people no matter how many times you chant otherwise.
The bottom line is the woman agreed to be searched. She allowed the search to continue when she could have stopped it. She declared she was raped but took no legal action, nor attempted to file charges, call the police, etc.
You rally around a false sexual assault charge. Seriously. How many patdowns have happened in the US now? How many sexual assault charges have been filed? How many sexual assault charges have been prosecuted?
Why don't you just make up some other bogus charges? Battery? Attempted murder? Kidnapping? Extortion? Why stop at rape? If the blogger can make accusations without worry that she has to back them up in court, might as well make a whole bunch of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One problem you have here--to be placed in prison or to even be put in jail and thus searched The officers must at minimum have probable cause, and usually you have to be charged with a crime to be put in jail or for prison convicted of a crime.
"If I go to the airport, and they tell me, I must be searched in order to fly, I turn away and leave. There is no threat of physical harm or arrest. There is no duress. Sure, I want to fly and I want not to be searched. But the fact is that is currently not an option."
You go ahead and test that theory of yours. Try to turn away and leave--people have tried this, many of them have been arrested and charged.
As far as duress and harm is concerned, you may have hundereds of $$ to blow on an airline ticket that you are unable to use and then even more on alternative transportation but many people don't so there is "harm" threatened at minimum financially.
"The TSA searches are invasive and a violation of our 4th amendment rights, but they are not sexual assault."
Except that what occurs meets every definition of sexual assault.
"Why don't you just make up some other bogus charges? Battery? Attempted murder? Kidnapping? Extortion? Why stop at rape? If the blogger can make accusations without worry that she has to back them up in court, might as well make a whole bunch of them."
Because none of that happened. What happened was a sexual assault under color of law.
You can chant it is not sexual assault all you want, but that does not change what happened. It was both an illegal search and sexual assault all wrapped up into one happy tamale.
Repeating water is not wet again and again does not change the properties of liquid H2O. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, eats like a duck it is not likely it is a possum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
Flying on a plane is a privilege. You all think it's your inalienable right (like big screen TV's and mochas). The fact is, I fly often and I'm tired of people who complain that security is 'far too tight'. I like to think that I'm a little bit safer because of physical inspections, scatter ray devices, passport/driver license examinations, and the like. I think the FAA agrees and ultimately congress as they have passed no bills to ban these items.
I take it most of you would prefer to fly on an airline that has no security. So be it. I wish they had that airline for you so I wouldn't have to listen to you whine any longer. I would imagine that potential terrorists would also like to fly that same airline as well. Have fun with that.
Unfortunately planes are expensive and, apparently, so are the people that fly on them when they're dead. Airlines think its better to be safe then to dole out big checks for more equipment and burial costs.
This woman is obviously unstable. Whether or not a finger brushed her labia or not, the fact that this woman's life fell apart at the mere 'grazing' of a finger on her 'private parts' tells me that she is an emotional roller coaster. So hold her up as a blazing trophy for your discontent, I on the other hand see her for what she is (and what most of you are), spoiled, whiny, selfish individuals who care more for your comfort than for the lives and families of those who sit next to you on a plane. Welcome to the great nation we call America! Land of the free, home of the bra... selfish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
Freedom of travel must not be abridged by the government without sufficient cause.
I like to think that I'm a little bit safer because of physical inspections, scatter ray devices, passport/driver license examinations, and the like. I think the FAA agrees and ultimately congress as they have passed no bills to ban these items.
And you trust these people? Have you read about "security theater"? It's working on you!
I take it most of you would prefer to fly on an airline that has no security.
That is a false dichotomy and a strawman at the same time. Two fallacies for the price of one! ;-)
Airlines think its better to be safe then to dole out big checks for more equipment and burial costs.
Airlines don't have a choice in the matter (AFAIK). If they were providing their own security, things might look very different, because they'd have an incentive to provide the level of security their customers want. TSA has no such incentive.
This woman is obviously unstable.
And I thought making a mental health diagnosis from a video was impressive. You can do it just from a news report!
I on the other hand see her for what she is (and what most of you are), spoiled, whiny, selfish individuals who care more for your comfort than for the lives and families of those who sit next to you on a plane.
If you think this is about "comfort", you have missed it.
Welcome to the great nation we call America! Land of the free, home of the bra... selfish.
Interesting that the person defending the government's intrusive searches and criticizing a citizen for sticking up for herself when she believes her rights have been violated is the one trumpeting about the free and the brave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
>>> What nonsense! The doctor has your consent, the TSA does not. Consent given under duress is not consent at all.
"By flying you are agreeing to the security inspections the same as visiting a doctor."
>>> Wrong again. Check your airline's contract of carriage, which has the following government required language:
The airline may refuse to carry a passenger "who refuses to permit search of his/her person or property for explosives or a concealed, deadly, or dangerous weapon or article."
>>> Note there is nothing about a security inspection the same as visiting the doctor. If there were, then I would expect a real doctor, licensed to practice in that state, would be doing the exam.
>>> Did it even occur to you that no lawful contract can require you to engage in unlawful activity, i.e. non consensual sexual contact? What is the TSA runnig here? A security checkpoint or a bawdy house?
"Flying on a plane is a privilege."
>>> Maybe where you come from flying on a plane is a privilege, but in the USA, flying on a plane is a right.
49 US Code-Section 40103 (2) "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." And btw, when I buy a ticket on an airplane, I have a right to that service, period.
"I like to think that I'm a little bit safer because of physical inspections, scatter ray devices, passport/driver license examinations, and the like."
>>> Dream on my friend. TSA agents have been caught stealing from passengers, damaging aircraft, taking illegal drugs drugs, losing uniforms, badges, security keys, dealing in child pornography, armed robbery in uniform... the list goes on and on. Feel safer? I don't, especially when you realize there is nothing in the TSA act to prohibit TSA employees from colluding with Terrorists.
"I take it most of you would prefer to fly on an airline that has no security."
>>> Actually, I have flown in the US and other countries before there was this silly security. The food was better, the stewardesses prettier, and everyone dressed and acted better than today. And yes, I felt a lot safer too.
"I wish they had that airline for you so I wouldn't have to listen to you whine any longer. I would imagine that potential terrorists would also like to fly that same airline as well. Have fun with that."
>>> So do I. Since everyone who flies is considered a potential terrorist, the airline you propose would have lots of customers and no real problems. Imagine going to the airport without having to worry about long lines, being robbed, irradiated, molested, denied boarding because some enemy didn't like your politics and put you on the no fly list. Sounds good to me. I remember flying like that many years ago. No problem!
>>> By the way, did it ever occur to you that terrorists might apply for jobs with the TSA? Or that the TSA, being an equal opportunity employer, would hire them? Still feel safe?
"This woman is obviously unstable."
>>> Who are you to judge? You did not experience what she experienced, you were not there, so how would you know? Seems to me she is experiencing the symptoms common to victims of sexual abuse, and her story is the same as other women have related. And btw, the story said "stuck the side of her gloved hand INTO my vagina, through my pants. Between my labia. She really got up there. Four times."
I doubt very much she would be complaining about a finger "brushing" her labia if that was all that happened.
"I on the other hand see her for what she is (and what most of you are), spoiled, whiny, selfish individuals who care more for your comfort than for the lives and families of those who sit next to you on a plane."
>>> What a silly statement. Anything that happens to those who sit next to me happens to me as well. Nobody should be molested as a condition of flying, nobody. Not me, not you, not the person or family flying next to me.
>>> I see you for what you are: a wannabe dictator on a powertrip who enjoys the suffering of others, especially women, and a toady to the TSA.
>>> As for the TSA itself, they are like the flood walls at Fukushima. Unnecessary most of the time, and useless when a real threat comes along. We would be better off without them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
That airline existed 30 years ago, and they had less terrorist incidents then the ones of today.
The scanner manufactures have stated that their machines would not have detected the weapons in many of the recent high profile incidents including 9/11. Security auditors are able to routinely sneak weapons onto planes in something like 75% of cases.
It exists because of the political liability of doing nothing. It works because people are very bad at assessing risk. They will gladly spend billions of dollars to protect themselves against a very specific and scary scenario(plane hijackings), however unlikely, while caring little about unglamorous yet far more likely scenarios (car accidents).
Why do you consider flying a privilege, assuming you can afford it? Because if it is, then I'm wondering what couldn't be considered a privilege. It seems like most aspects of what people associate with living could be considered a privilege. You could easily reach a point that by simply existing in this county you have consented to give up all the rights you were supposedly guaranteed based simply on executive branch policy not enshrined in law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theldala Magee welcome to the 'Streisand Effect'
I've even posted it on my blog as well with links to slashdot, here and to Amy Alkon's blog.
Got to love the Streisand Effect, search wikipedia for that if you never heard of it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theldala Magee welcome to the 'Streisand Effect'
Perhaps you were not aware that Mike Masnick coined that term on this blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA Agent basically admitted wrongdoing
Nothing forced the TSA agent to do what she did. Note there is no mention of the TSA agent saying "this didn't happen that way," merely "what happened isn't rape, and you can't call it rape," effectively admitting to the overzealous and unnecessary examination of the victim's body.
Every last one of these TSA thugs should be locked up for participating in criminal abuse, knowingly depriving citizens of their basic rights, and engaging in the expensive lie that is airport security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice message to send out. "We can violate you, and if you tell anyone we did it, we will sue you"
Is it just me or does that sound extremely shady?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defamation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there were any justice left in this country the invasive searches without warrants would be stopped yesterday!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Homeland Terrorist??
Foreign terror or TSA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better be careful. According to your logic you could now be charged with slander and sued for defamation. You have accused someone with slander and defamation before those charges were proven in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gov wants flying closed
Seriously, haven't people considered an honest attempt at a boycott against flying? Wouldn't that hurt the economy and make it clear the terrorists won?
I have to believe the public generally feels safer and supports this. Most fly infrequently and then likely don't go through the machines or go through them without thinking twice about it (about any danger or privacy issue).
Remember, the gov says it is safe.
Remember, people get naked in front of the doctor and various others. Not all doctors would be "professionals", but perhaps the public does generally assume the TSA workers are professionals and in the big scheme of things nothing happened.
Too much of a hassle to give up flying or fight it, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Write your congressman or senator
The TSA, above all other agencies, has proven to be corrupt and unfitting of the american way of life. I no longer fly because I refuse to be subject to such tyranny.
If you don't like being searched and invaded every time you need to get somewhere in a hurry--then please share this idea, and write your representative.
Sure, thousands of people will be losing their jobs--but millions more will be able to fly in safety and for lower air-fare taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA touches junk on a daily basis.. Just for fun...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of the Road, and How to Use It.
I once hired a taxicab to take me three hundred miles. I was moving at the time, and I had enough complications with the mover's timetables and deadlines, without wanting to add those of an airline. So I called up a taxicab company; they put me in contact with one of their drivers; we negotiated a fare; and he gave me his cellphone number. This was back in about 1995, when not everyone had cellphones, of course. At any rate, on moving day, I called the driver from time to time, to keep him posted on how fast the movers were loading my goods. He kept on taking regular fares until the last minute, and then arrived a few minutes after the movers had left. And away we went! On a door-to-door basis, it was just about as fast as the airlines (much faster now, of course), and rather more flexible. The (cash) price was in the same general ballpark as airfare, bearing in mind that I was not eligible for the various excursion discounts.
That said, there are surprisingly few limits on what one can do with cleverly designed road transport.
Suppose someone takes old Greyhound buses, and refits them as sleeper coaches, with say, four or five roomettes per bus, and with all feasible comforts. Operating at the commercial vehicle speed limit of 65 mph (higher in certain western states), the buses could cover about 1500 miles a day. The company would enter into arrangements with local taxicab and limousine companies to sell the service, and to pick up passengers and deliver them to suitable transfer points, such as truck stops on the interstate highways, and to deliver incoming passengers to their ultimate destinations. With only four or five passengers per sleeper coach, and taxicab/limousine for the first and last fifty or hundred miles, it ought to be feasible to set up direct routes, eg. Bay Area to Dallas--Fort Worth. That works out to something over 1700 miles, road distance, so a passenger would leave the Bay Area, Sunday night, and be available for business in Dallas-- Fort Worth, fully rested on Tuesday morning. That might not be quite as fast as the airlines, but it is close enough to be a possible alternative, particularly bearing in mind that the passenger could work effectively at the desk in his roomette. When you take account of the fact that people have to sleep somewhere, it is only at the very longest distances that the airlines are without potential competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA
The TSA is a rogue agency that is almost identical to the Brown Shirts of Germany. In fact, they use many of the same physical attacks: forceful throwing to the ground elderly wheel chair bound persons. And since the man in question was less than 90 years old and only crippled, the TSA thought to be on the safe side to call for reinforcements, which they did. And then at least four big, brawny, healthy, armed and trained bullies attacted the dangerous elderly wheelchair bound man.
What in the world is wrong with this country?
A bully is a bully regardless of weather or not he wears a badge and uniform and packs a Glock automatic.
I don't know the TSA female who violated the person of the passenger, but I do know what the meaning of is, is. Which is that the ignorant would-be gauleiter should be fired immediately. But that won't happen because the govt is full of crave poodles who lap filth from the street in order to keep their jobs.
Henri
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ya but the question is....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Magee is a rapist.
We need to put the TSA in it's place - which is in the bin. They deserve no respect and should be disbanded. In the future people should be ashamed to admit they ever worked for such a scumbag governmental agency.
David T. McKee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tortuous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously.
Secondly, has anyone ever really stepped back and looked at some of this a bit more logically. For instance, how much explosive to really take down a plane. Seriously folks, it would take a LOT. A small explosive device might blow a small hole in the plane but oxygen masks would deploy and the pilot would bring the plane down to a level where it didn't require pressurization. Planes have been safely landed in these kinds of circumstances before. Smaller and powerful devices hidden on a person are EXTREMELY difficult because the components needed are difficult to properly transport and compbine. At best you get a fizzled failed effort like the shoe bomber - whose powder explosives would not have been detected by the porno-scanners anyway. C4 explosive would need to be transported in a large brick size or in even larger quantity to do enough damage. And C4 consistency is more like semi-hard putty or clay. A light pat down like they used to do back in the day is sufficient to detect this amount of hard clay like material. Seriously - they don't need to poke you in the smeggegy to figure this out - it would be obvious you were "packing" so to speak. They need to focus more on the baggage - both carry on and what goes in the hold and this includes all the unscanned cargo. What we have here folks is really bad case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
As far as Ms. Alkon - thank God someone has the "er" balls to stand up to the TSA and not to bow down to this attempt to intimidate her into silence. The TSA needs to be abolished - not security - just the TSA.
there are other technologies that can be used and have been used both in Europe and even in Florida (iris scanning, etc.) that provide fast reliable security without violating someone's modesty or personal space. However the TSA with former goverment TSA officials lobbying their porno-scanners completely overlooked our rights and selected a technology that is ineffective, dangerous, and a violation of our personal privacy as US citizens.
And lastly for all those bozos who keep saying flying is a priviledge if you don't like it don't fly - get your facts straight. It's NOT a privilege it is a right. Secondly, many of us have no choice as it is required by our jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tsa rape
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand effect wheee!
and links like it spreading all over the net, lets see this TSA molester sue everybody online.
gotta love the streisand effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happened when I was there
As I was waiting to go to the search direction, I made the comment to the liar TSA guy, "your the one that will get the radiation poisoning as you work next to the machine all day".
Then seeing that they had a thinker on their hands, I got another TSA agent for my search. This guy was not quite so stupid as the liar. He looked me right in the eye and basically said, "lets get this over with". It looked to me like the TSA guys HATE doing the searches.
He read his script to me. I said, "you can say whatever you want if it makes you feel better". He then asked me if I wanted to do the search in a private room, and I said, "I'm not the one ashamed of my behavior".
We were standing where a lot of people could hear my comments and the TSA all looked quite ashamed.
He asked if I objected to him doing the search to which I asked loudly, "are you gay? I don't want a gay man or female TSA agent grabbing my crotch". He said he was not gay to which I said that he would be no worse than anyone else.
He then asked if I agreed to the search. I said, "I will never agree with your shameful decisions, but I will do nothing to stop you or resist in any way".
As he did his search he came to my crotch. I had a suit on and the slacks left little to the imagination being thin material. As he grabbed my penis I said loudly to everyone watching, "oh yes everyone you saw that correctly - he just grabbed my penis". He went bright red. He looked like he was contemplating a new job ASAP. He was not having any fun at all.
All I did as verbalize what he was physically doing, as he was doing it. I could tell no one had ever done this to him before.
One of the people putting on their shoes watching me actually dropped his jaw wide open and went bug eyed when he heard my penis comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it rape when she could have said "no"?
My understanding is that you can refuse the search at anytime, including during the search. Yes, obviously they are not going to let you through the checkpoint without a search, but it is an option.
The question above makes me wonder why a gynecological examination is not a rape, but a TSA search is. They both are conducted under the consent of the subject and both examinations are required to stop immediately at the request of the subject.
The victim obviously felt violated by the incident, but the legal system currently requires the persons involved in any "sexual" encounter to actually revoke consent once given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it rape when she could have said "no"?
Why is a gynecological examination not a rape, but a TSA search is? The GYN exam is voluntary, and while unpleasant, is for the benefit of the woman concerned and her health. The TSA "procedure" is punitive (for opting out of the scanner), endured under duress (you won't board your flight if you refuse), and is for no one's benefit but the TSA's. Check any colleges' web site re sex abuse. It will tell you such assaults are about power, and can be same sex. Check out how women react to TSA assault and sexual assault under other circumstances. The body and mind react the same way, with one difference. It's worse when your assailant wears a government uniform can assault you with impunity today, next week, next year, and doesn't see anything wrong in his/her actions. TSA knows it is traumatic to women, but does it anyway.
I don't feel any safer knowing women (and children, and men) are being molested as a condition of flying. Any TSA agent that does this is just as likely, in my mind, to turn a blind eye to other illegal activity. In fact, TSA agents have been caught stealing from passengers, smuggling drugs, dealing in child porn, committing robbery and abduction while in uniform. What makes anyone think they would hesitate about colluding with terrorists if the price was right, or if their bosses ordered it. (The crotch bomber was escorted onto the plane by a US State Dept rep, don't ask me why.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it rape when she could have said "no"?
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-11-20/business/sfl-airport-scans-pat-downs-refual-20 101121_1_tsa-airport-checkpoint-sari-koshetz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i will leave the rest to your imagination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/09/airport-screening-statistics.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vagina exam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vagina exam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vagina exam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition of Rape
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.haberdar.com/
Haber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The gay ol' TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attorney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same thing happened to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No documents
Perhaps it's time for a followup as to what happened since 2011?
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]