TSA Tries To Confiscate Video At Airport Security Screening Checkpoint
America ISN'T supposed to work this way. I love this guy. I don't agree with his solution (on Constitutional or practical grounds), but he's right on his protest.
The TSA claims that you can take photos or video at checkpoints, but not if local laws prevent it. Sorry, but Federal laws trump local. The First Amendment is not supposed to go away because people decide to legislate against it in a municipality.
Nice video, especially the calm way his wife talks to the TSA people while continuing to record their illegal demands that she stop recording.
However, his solution is not a solution at all - he atcually wants to give TSA *more* power by having them routinely question people about their travel.
TSA needs to be eliminated. Simply that.
a_random_guy at July 27, 2011 5:00 AM
Notice how the smurf says he was "disturbed" by the questions the passenger asked, because -- think of the children!
You cannot make this shit up. There is nothing you can think of that could be more phony, stupid, or beyond the pale than what the TSA has done, is doing, and will continue to do. "We can grope your penis, you just can't say the word 'penis'."
Orwell is spinning in his grave.
Lisa Simeone at July 27, 2011 5:34 AM
"The only kinds of fights worth fighting," said I.F. Stone, "are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing -- for the sheer fun and joy of it -- to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose. You mustn't feel like a martyr. You've got to enjoy it."
Lisa Simeone at July 27, 2011 7:54 AM
The problem with fighting, and fighting those fights that we are going to lose, Lisa, is that:
"We are turning into a nation of whimpering slaves to Fear—fear of war, fear of poverty, fear of random terrorism, fear of getting down-sized or fired because of the plunging economy, fear of getting evicted for bad debts or suddenly getting locked up in a military detention camp on vague charges of being a Terrorist sympathizer."
I didn't say that, Hunter did. Hunter S. Thompson. He's been calling this game all along, and he's been dead, what, 6 years now? No one "enjoys" fighting, because we've been conditioned not to. Personally, I wouldn't mind taking up this fight, because right now, with the way things are, I feel I don't have anything to lose. Except my life. And I like my life enough that I don't want to lose it. There's got to be a better way to win this, but I'm damned if I know what it is.
Flynne at July 27, 2011 8:06 AM
I know what you mean, Flynne. It's hard not to despair. I can only say for me, at least I'm going down fighting.
We are bringing together people from the Right and the Left (although that dichotomy increasingly makes little sense) for our October action. It's a beginning. And yes, we know we'll face massive police presence, including riot police, who are fricking scary -- that's their point. But we're still going. Take a look:
http://october2011.org
Lisa Simeone at July 27, 2011 8:36 AM
I hear TSA agents are selling Polaroids of "nudie-scans" in some of the seedier bars, pool halls and brothels near JFK. Anyone got a line on this?
A Concerned Citizen-Minuteman at July 27, 2011 11:50 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/27/tsa_tries_to_co.html#comment-2383992">comment from A Concerned Citizen-MinutemanI hear TSA agents are selling Polaroids of "nudie-scans" in some of the seedier bars, pool halls and brothels near JFK. Anyone got a line on this?
As if I have to tell anyone, yes, this is from BOTU.
Amy Alkon at July 27, 2011 11:55 AM
If jurisdictional questions were so easily answered, law students wouldn't have to suffer through a course devoted to them. No, federal law does not always pre-empt local laws-- pre-emption occurs only when there's proper federal jurisdiction and the state law contradicts or interferes with the execution of the federal law.
If a city has a municipal ordinance against taking video in an airport terminal, that does not conflict with the non-regulation of videography by TSA. So there's no pre-emption.
The First Amendment does not guarantee a right to take video in an airport terminal, for the same reason that it does not guarantee a right to solicit in an airport terminal: an airport terminal is not a public forum for speech or expression. International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992). The governing authority is free to make reasonable restrictions on expressive activity, like videography, to serve the purpose of promoting efficient air travel.
Do I think that banning videography is a bad policy? Yes. Does that make it unconstitutional? No.
Dale at July 27, 2011 1:23 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/27/tsa_tries_to_co.html#comment-2384088">comment from DaleWell, if you have the law chops to challenge this in court, would you please do it?
Amy Alkon at July 27, 2011 1:34 PM
The TSA claims that you can take photos or video at checkpoints, but not if local laws prevent it. Sorry, but Federal laws trump local. The First Amendment is not supposed to go away because people decide to legislate against it in a municipality.
A lot of people apparently misunderstand the First Amendment. The First Amendment only pertains to what the Federal Government may and may not do. This is shown by the fact that is starts with, "Congress shall make no law..." States, Cities, Municipalities, and any other level of government besides the Federal may make any such laws as they decide. This is different from the wording of the Second Amendment, which makes no statement as to the scope of the law, and should only be nullified by private property owners, unlike the numerous laws which have been passed in contradiction to it.
WayneB at July 27, 2011 1:57 PM
Those of you who would fight this, do not forget Web cameras.
Don't risk losing a big gadget. Carry a small one that transmits, that keeps no personal information on it, so that if it's taken, you lose less. Make sure it's personally serialized so you can recover your property legally. If it is taken from you, scan frequently afterward to see where it turns up. Make them search for where you're sending the video, streaming live over the air.
Radwaste at July 27, 2011 2:16 PM
Rad could you give an example or link to such a device? I was thinking about doing something via ustream but I don't know of any devices that have immediate streaming like that (short of being attached to a laptop). I'm starting to make holiday travel plans. I'm not even joking. More than any other time in my life, right now I can afford the penalties of being a damn in the stream of beuracracy.
Elle at July 27, 2011 8:16 PM
"The First Amendment only pertains to what the Federal Government may and may not do. This is shown by the fact that is starts with, "Congress shall make no law..." States, Cities, Municipalities, and any other level of government besides the Federal may make any such laws as they decide."
Wayne, I'm not sure I buy that, and here's why: That sentence of the First Amendment actually begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The freedom of speech bit is the next clause in that sentence. By your reasoning, if the prohibition against abridging speech doesn't apply to the states, then the prohibition against establishment of religion doesn't either.
Cousin Dave at July 27, 2011 8:34 PM
CD,
You got to it before I could. But the word you are looking for is incorporated or incorporation.
Wayne,
The First Amendment was incorporated with Gitlow v. New York (1925) in which the Court expressly held that States were bound to protect freedom of speech.
The Second was just incorporated with McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
This is a case of Rodney King writ small but thousands of times a day.
Jim P. at July 28, 2011 6:04 AM
"Rad could you give an example or link to such a device?"
Sorry I didn't see this earlier. I was given the idea by a friend with 'puter skills who insists that common remote security cameras can do this.
Though these are a bit bulkier than I have in mind, they should serve to illustrate that if you have a wireless camera and a laptop in range, it can be very tough to figure out who is watching the camera's picture, and you can stream it live or to a recording device of your choice. Especially if you have a cell-phone data account.
The scene: you want to record a scene. You pull the camera out and start it (actually, cameras can be very small, hard to find even if patted down - think of a button). It transmits to a laptop - actually, I think an iPhone or Droid can do this - which relays the pic and audio to a distant location as well as streaming it.
Hey, if you get the multi-camera set, you might be able to take one with you and leave the others on duty at home.
I'll ask more how to set this up this weekend.
Radwaste at July 29, 2011 10:17 AM
Leave a comment