Breaking News: The TSA Agent Who Visited My Vagina
Mike Masnick just broke the story on me on Techdirt:
"TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search Rape."
There's a link to my original blog item within his link, along with TSA agent Thedala Magee's lawyer's letter and the reply from my knight in shining legal armor, Marc Randazza.
Please share the link -- and please don't go quietly as your Fourth Amendment rights are violated at TSA groping stations in airports across America. More to come on this. (I'm on deadline today, but I'll probably have a full post up with background on this tomorrow, and in the near future, a piece on what we all need to do to stop the erosion of our rights...by the TSA and in so many arenas in this country.)
Balko, Cosh and Sanchez tweeted the story instantly. You have the attention of great people.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 6, 2011 2:02 PM
If any agent thinks its ok to jam fingers into your vagina through clothing as part of a search, then something is wrong. I'm sorry for what you went through this.
Kristen at September 6, 2011 2:17 PM
I am not sure your attorney should be arguing this from a soapbox, which is how I read his response. My best wishes to you on this endeavor, Amy.
Eric at September 6, 2011 2:25 PM
Best of luck with this Amy, my cynicism is such that I don't see any justice happening.
I had to go through a body scanner in Amsterdam last week... apparently it showed something on my right ankle and I got a brief pat down there after the scan. That something would be a bunched up sock.
Sio at September 6, 2011 2:36 PM
This is unbelievable. Fatherland security agent Thedala Magee has several choices and chose the worst:
1. Get a job that doesn't require you to sexually assault the traveling public.
2. Stand up to your 'superiors' and refuse to violate people's Fourth Amendment rights. Start a lawsuit from within the evil TSA empire.
3. Apologize publicly for what she knows she did.
4. Sue our Amy.
Eric, the nature of this case provides the soapbox. Why shouldn't it be used for good?
DrCos at September 6, 2011 2:49 PM
“The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority.” Stanley Milgram
(Good for you, Amy. Good for you. I tweeted it to my modest list of followers!)
Feebie at September 6, 2011 3:09 PM
Your attorney wrote an amazing letter - I thought it was awesome and expressed my complete thoughts on the matter. Stand up for liberty in every way. I admire your courage.
tophat at September 6, 2011 3:13 PM
Seriously, this whole damn thing reminds me of the Milgram Experiment. People like Magee should be outed and publicly humiliated - without mercy.
It is people like this, (not the Maos, Hitlers or Stalins) that are the greatest threat to a free society.
Feebie at September 6, 2011 3:16 PM
TSA is a SCoaMF.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 6, 2011 3:16 PM
>> Eric, the nature of this case provides the soapbox. Why shouldn't it be used for good?
Just my initial opinion, but from the judges I have dealt with in court, they make the TSA look relaxed and downright friendly. They want to hear the facts, and nothing but the legal argument. When Amy's attorney made statements like Ms. Magee being a traitor to our way of life and the TSA as being a "petty army", I simply think that most judges would not take kindly to that sort of rhetoric.
But I am not an attorney, let alone an experienced one.
Eric at September 6, 2011 3:22 PM
Wow! That is one hell of an ambulance-chasing, name-dropping, publicity-seeking celebrity attorney you're up against, Amy. Check out her bio on the Internet Movie Database(!):
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2399449/bio
Here's a sample:
"Maternal grandmother, Blanche Schildkraut Klein, was second cousin of Best Supporting Actor Academy Award winner Joseph Schildkraut, the first non-American born actor to win an Oscar for Best Actor in a Supporting Role for "The Life of Emile Zola" (1937)"
And if you check out her IMDB homepage, you'll see that she needs the whole world to know that she was in the VIP audience in the Michael Jackson Memorial TV movie!
So this is the person who thinks YOU'RE guilty of inflicting tortuous emotional distress. Best of luck to you.
Martin at September 6, 2011 3:28 PM
Alkon:
I do have a question: Suppose I pants you in the parking lot, pull you in my van, and screw you really good in there for a few hours, before dumping your satiated body out in front a McDonalds somewhere, so you can have "dinner on me."
Is this also a "rape"?
My point is, by defining TSA pat-downs as "rape," then what do you call a bona-fide rape, in which you are screwed by some guy who you never met before, or even a guy who you do know, but don't want to have sex with?
It seems, just like the college-campus feminista-weenies you laudably make fun of, you are so broadly defining rape that almost anything qualifies.
Rape is when a guy slams his big hard sausage uninvited into one of your three major orifices.
A patdown is not a "rape."
BOTU at September 6, 2011 3:29 PM
Support at popehat:
http://www.popehat.com/2011/09/06/complain-about-being-sexually-assaulted-by-a-tsa-thug-theyll-sue/
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 6, 2011 3:44 PM
Keep fighting the good fight.
Ken at September 6, 2011 3:45 PM
I trust that Amy will be victorious and hope that she counter sues her assailant. I will gladly contribute to her legal fund and appreciate that she has exposed these abusive thugs for the criminals that they are.
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 and groping them with impunity. This is unacceptable and those responsible must be held accountable.
Bill Fisher at September 6, 2011 3:56 PM
Amy, Forbes picked up your story and it's linked on Drudge!
Feebie at September 6, 2011 4:13 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/06/the_tsa_agent_w.html#comment-2462188">comment from FeebieThat's wonderful. Thank you. And if people do repost and share this, please urge everybody who reads you to speak up against the violation of our Fourth Amendment rights by the TSA. This continues because we've been docile and pleasant and polite about being sexually assaulted at airports under the pretense of "security."
What I believe this is about, in at least some measure, is priming Americans to be docile about giving up their rights. Also, it's about bureaucracy and money. I'm a fiscal conservative and a libertarian, and I have not a problem in the world with people making money. I love entrepreneurs and people who work hard and make something of themselves. But, in this situation, the money trail must be followed -- to people like Michael Chertoff who turn their time in government into a candy store of cash. (His consulting firm represents scanner makers.) Are these scanners there because they are making us safer or because they are making a few people a lot of money?
Furthermore, according to news items I've linked to here, Napolitano lied when she said the scanners were approved by Johns Hopkins (for one example) as safe for use on humans. In fact, it seems they may not be approved for use on humans AT ALL. Lisa Simeone, who has been a constant and terrific source of information on TSA malfeasance, I think is the one who sent me this link: http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/09/01/1958204/EPIC-Uncovers-Mobile-Scanners-Not-Certified-People-Scanners
Amy Alkon at September 6, 2011 4:21 PM
"My point is, by defining TSA pat-downs as "rape," then what do you call a bona-fide rape ... Rape is when a guy slams his big hard sausage uninvited into one of your three major orifices."
BOTU, you're just flat out wrong, the vast majority of legal jurisdictions in the world define rape as including forced penetration by objects or other body parts. Your outright false statements are extremely insulting to the women who have been raped, in many cases brutally, by things other than penises. I suppose you would also admonish women who have been brutally raped by objects like brooms in e.g. war scenarios (those that survive the injuries) that they were 'not raped'. Words don't actually mean whatever you want them to, I find it absurd that you make such brazenly false statements when it's incredibly trivial to debunk them.
Lobster at September 6, 2011 4:21 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/06/the_tsa_agent_w.html#comment-2462191">comment from Amy AlkonBy the way, I'm not done here -- there's a step two to this, and I'm going to dig in to it tomorrow. (I've been working on it for a while, but now I have to finish it and put it out). I got the final piece of information I needed for it today -- once again, from the wonderful Lisa Simeone.
Amy Alkon at September 6, 2011 4:23 PM
"They want to hear the facts, and nothing but the legal argument. "
Eric, you're right as far as this goes, but the point is not to make a scene in court. The point is to use the publicity that the case will draw. As we're seeing already.
Cousin Dave at September 6, 2011 4:30 PM
RE: Chertoff and Body Scanners. You can add Soros to the list too.
Feebie at September 6, 2011 4:36 PM
The plaintiff's attorney here is a fucking joke (in my opinion, please don't sue me, lol). She makes Gloria Allred look almost human.
Bob at September 6, 2011 4:41 PM
Here's the money-quote, for me:
"This was not only her right -- it was her responsibility."
If you defend the officer - just how far does the agent have to go before YOU object?
Radwaste at September 6, 2011 4:51 PM
TSA has introduced the Passenger Inquisition. Suspicion, intimidation, humiliation, abuse, and now physical violation.
Rick at September 6, 2011 5:08 PM
Thank you for your heroic stand against bullies and police state creeps.
John W at September 6, 2011 5:10 PM
Alkon:
Having never been a sex perp (I know, limited lifestyle), I always thought putting a flashlight up a girl's silent frontal orifice was "sodomy."
Okay--then if you call a TSA pat-down "rape,' then what terms do we have for real rapes, where people abduct you to a hidden place and insert penises or objects into your orifices for malicious or sexual pleasure?
Getting a TSA pat down in public is not exactly what I call a rape.
For example, I would not toss a TSA employee into prison, but I would a bona-fide rapist.
If TSA pat-downs are rapes, then are all police pat-downs also rapes? What separates a police pat-down from a TSA pat-down--and don't say the police have cause. If touching your privates through your Levis is rape, then I have been raped by a few cops along the way.
BOTU at September 6, 2011 5:23 PM
BTW, a dictionary definition of rape--so I was accurate, at least in modern English. Legalese? Who knows?
rape 1 [reyp] Show IPA noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.
noun
1.
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3.
statutory rape.
4.
an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5.
Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
BOTU at September 6, 2011 5:26 PM
Watch out Amy!
This woman's attorney is a "premier legal strategist" and is "recognized for her talent, dedication, and education (Southwestern University Law School)."
Not to mention, she "has received numerous awards and is a member of several organizations."
Numerous awards! Several organizations! Oh my!
http://www.restmycase.com/
Conan the Grammarian at September 6, 2011 5:26 PM
Don't sell yourself short there.
All those trips to Thailand.
The anal and bodily fluid obsession that you demonstrate in nearly every one of your posts.
With a little effort, BOTU, you could achieve your dream.
Conan the Grammarian at September 6, 2011 5:32 PM
Shame, that's the best trolling BOTU could manage. Not even good at trolling.
Lobster at September 6, 2011 5:37 PM
Amy don't put up with this. It was way over the top.
Let them take you court and watch how fast the TSA backs down. Even if they don't take it all the way no matter how long or how much. You will win.
LOpan at September 6, 2011 6:06 PM
The 'chilling effect' from a case like this on sexual assault victims seems potentially disturbingly broad; if any women who was the victim of a sexual assault could be sued by the perpetrator if the accusation didn't lead to a successful conviction, then women would be too terrified to ever come out against their attackers. In fact, you would not even be able to yell 'rape' if someone were busy attacking you, unless you took the time to think about whether or not you would be able to prove that what you were yelling could be proven in court.
A commenter on techdirt makes the following claim that this is in fact the case, according to the law:
--------------------------- tauareyou:
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.
---------------------------
If tauareyou is correct, then even in attempted rape / sexual assault prosecution cases that did not ultimately lead to convictions (e.g. if there was not enough evidence to convict), the rapist could sue the accuser. The implications would be far-reaching and chilling. I get the point, but it seems very 'off'. We can hardly expect that women who are busy in the process of being sexually assaulted, should be expected to retain composure, understand how the law would apply to what is underway, and think carefully about whether or not it would be fair and accurate to yell 'rape' in case it slanders her attacker if she can't prove the assault.
Lobster at September 6, 2011 6:09 PM
Forbes magazine, on the case! Amy Alkon, how cool is that?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 6, 2011 6:12 PM
Forbes magazine, on the case! Amy Alkon, how cool is that?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 6, 2011 6:16 PM
Awesome, Amy!! Truly, truly awesome!!
Flynne at September 6, 2011 6:44 PM
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
Eric at September 6, 2011 6:49 PM
You received a pat down, and you have now trivialized the experiences of women who are actually raped. How insensitive can you be? Some advice columnist.
JA at September 6, 2011 7:16 PM
Ms. Alkon. Thank you for taking a stand. I just returned to SF last week from Las Vegas. I declined the scanner and opted for the pat down. I'm a frequent business traveler (something like 2 Million miles), and I wasn't wearing a lot of clothes (a t-shirt and shorts). After being put in the punishment box and calls for "male assist, male assist" I was given a grope.
The TSA agent, a big beefy dude, who couldn't have been more than 24, started reciting his speech to me. He asked me if I have "any parts of my body that might be sore or sensitive". I stated that my testicles are sensitive and I would prefer he not touch them. He asked me "do we have some kind of problem?", and I said that I was just answering his question.
In his subsequent "grope" he not only touched my testicles, but he whacked them, twice, with the back of his hand. I was shocked and in pain. It took all my self control not to start pounding him. Of course I didn't want to get arrested. He was clearly messing with me, and felt he could get away with it, because it would just be my word against his. I can't believe this kind of crap can go on in America. I'm a middle-aged businessman, and when I want to start to pound the crap out of a TSA agent, you know they've gone over the edge.
I wish I had taken some action, filed a formal complaint. It still sickens me to remember the abuse and having to just stand there and take it.
Peter at September 6, 2011 8:01 PM
I passed a link to the article to my favorite Patriot talk show host. I added this comment:
Anyone with half a brain and the deductive reasoning of a snail knows the need for the TSA ended fifty minutes after the impact on Tower One. The brave souls on Flight 93 amply demonstrated this.
The TSA has been allowed to perpetrate all these atrocities in the name of "security." They have no true police powers or accountability. This offends me greatly. If they had police powers they would be held to constitutional standards. If they were a private security firm, such as Burns Security, Wells Fargo, Merchant's or any other, the individual guards, and/or the firms would easily be canned for such actions. Since they are an arm of DHS they occupy this quasi-federal niche makes them immune from normal lawsuits and lets them use the byzantine structure of federal rules and regulations to allow and obfuscate their abuses.
Let us know if you need help for a legal defense fund.
Jim P. at September 6, 2011 8:08 PM
Just my initial opinion, but from the judges I have dealt with in court, they make the TSA look relaxed and downright friendly. They want to hear the facts, and nothing but the legal argument. When Amy's attorney made statements like Ms. Magee being a traitor to our way of life and the TSA as being a "petty army", I simply think that most judges would not take kindly to that sort of rhetoric.
But I am not an attorney, let alone an experienced one.
Posted by: Eric
Fair point Eric, but a letter between lawyers in response to a nusiance complaint is not arguements before a judge in prelimenary motion for dismissal
lujlp at September 6, 2011 8:28 PM
Amy, don't let the dirtbags get you down. You are supported by real Americans against creeps who molest in the name of FEARDOM.
Chappy at September 6, 2011 9:02 PM
Saw this earlier today. Had to wait until I had time to post to let you know that you have my full support. If nobody calls DHS on their crap, it will only continue to escalate.
Sorry for your pain & hassle. Somebody has to fight the good fight.
Kevin
Kevin at September 6, 2011 10:16 PM
Countersue!File a countersuit Immediately. There ain't a jury in the world that will give some TSA Nazi your money. In fact, you may get their paycheck from the suit.
port80 at September 6, 2011 10:32 PM
I support you. Not a single one of our founding fathers would have not been outraged by another human being forcibly putting their hands on your genitalia...just so you could travel around our country. They would have been outraged.
I do feel a certain pity for the other woman. But it's pretty similar to the pity I feel for the prostitute.
Whether what she did correctly constitutes rape or not, she is a prostitute. Groping you for a paycheck, and I hope she goes home every night ashamed of her job. (If not, we all have failed)
Cat at September 6, 2011 10:44 PM
Give 'em hell, Amy!
Christopher at September 6, 2011 10:45 PM
> You received a pat down
Is there any context, outside deepest intimacy, where a woman can expect to be touched that way four times? Hell, if a gynecologist did that, his practice would be closed on the second day. A "pat down"?
I hate to say this, because there are (probably) some pretty nice guys here, including some who are fully adult. But commenters who are so brusque about the assault have gotta be incapable of relationships where that kind of contact can happen through warmth... They must very badly want to believe in some impersonal context where it happens as a matter of course...
...And they're juvenile enough to enjoy the authority angle of it, too.
Consider BOTU, our commenter from Kentucky. He likes to talk about butts a lot: His chosen nickname is just such an acronym. He gets very upset about the military, a realm of adult masculinity throughout history. And he likes to visit Thailand. Is there any regular visitor here with less reliable judgment about appropriate adult contact?
Nor can I understand those who think the TSA shouldn't be identified by name... As if they were secret agents like James Bond, except that they're also:
Got that? They can fondle you in front of dozens of strangers.
...But their names are whispers, and they move in shadow....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 6, 2011 10:48 PM
Listen, as we make time this week to nourish our loathing of Napolitano, let's set aside a moment to resent George Bush as well.
I know, I know... But history is showing him to be a man of pathetically foreshortened imagination. He got a graduate degree in business from Harvard, but even a moderately experienced MBA would have seen this coming.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 6, 2011 10:52 PM
Remember when waterboarding was bad -- you know, when Japanese officers were prosecuted for war crimes for doing it?
Remember back in the days of the USSR, when our official anticommunist establishment and the public school civics books said an internal passport system was a bad thing because THEY did it?
Not any more. Now it's the US government doing it, so I guess they'll start calling it FreedomBoarding, or something.
And when they round up "subversives" into mass detention camps (scuse me, Freedom Camps), that'll be another one of those things that was bad when the Nazis did it but is okay now.
Kevin Carson at September 6, 2011 11:48 PM
"you have now trivialized the experiences of women who are actually raped."
I hope you're as harsh on all the women who file false rape allegations...
crella at September 7, 2011 3:31 AM
Hey Amy, this Georgia security officer supports you 110% percent. Bullies with a badge such as Magee are why I stopped flying several years ago. They give respectful security professionals a bad name, and we despise them for doing so. Wishing you the very best!
Perry Williams at September 7, 2011 4:29 AM
Nah. MBA's can't think past the next quarterly report.
An engineer, however...
brian at September 7, 2011 7:29 AM
I can't believe someone is trying to turn this into "my rape was more brutal than yours" argument.
Tricia at September 7, 2011 8:01 AM
The definition of rape varies from state to state, but digital penetration does qualify as rape.
Tricia at September 7, 2011 8:08 AM
Was it digital though? I'm unclear what happened. I thought it was the "top for her hand", not that she inserted a finger.
Of course, it's humiliating either way, but one would be worse than the other, in my view.
lovelysoul at September 7, 2011 8:57 AM
If a TSA pat-down is a "rape,' then when I pinch a girl's rear in a bar, is that "sexual assault"?
And if I smile at a girl on an elevator after the doors close, is that "sexual harassment"?
So extreme definitions are good, except when they are bad?
BOTU at September 7, 2011 10:55 AM
> So extreme definitions are
You want to argue this is about Amy's definition of rape; yet the fault is very clearly in your definition of "pat down", and your track record in such matters is indisputably weak.
If it were stronger, I'd ask you which women in your own life you'd want, allow, or forgive being touched that way; But there's no reason to think you've attached to another other human being well enough to take the point... Especially to a dignified woman.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2011 11:16 AM
If a TSA pat-down is a "rape,' then when I pinch a girl's rear in a bar, is that "sexual assault"?
In YOUR case, BOTU, yes. Yes it IS "sexual assault". Touching anyone maliciously is an assault, although I doubt very much you would acknowledge it.
Flynne at September 7, 2011 12:12 PM
Wouldn't Magee, as a government employee, be considered a public figure? In that case, wouldn't she have to prove that Amy acted with actual malice (in other words, prove that Amy lied and that Amy KNEW she was lying)? As far as I can tell, Amy's criticisms of Magee applied to how she did her job (not to Magee's private life). So, I'm not sure why she can sue for defamation in the first place.
sofar at September 7, 2011 12:16 PM
oops I meant "I'm not sure why she thinks she could win a defamation case in the first place." Of course she (and any individual) can sue.
sofar at September 7, 2011 12:18 PM
> Wouldn't Magee, as a government employee,
> be considered a public figure?
Exactly.
> I'm not sure why she can sue for defamation
> in the first place.
This is dictionary stuff, not law, but presumably McGee is saying there was no intimate touching.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2011 12:22 PM
Also, as far as I've been able to tell from the coverage I've read, you never did file a criminal complaint against the TSA idiot. Apologies if I'm mistaken, but if not, I hope you will. If the LA Airport police won't take a complaint, you could send a written complaint to the DA.
Chris Bray at September 7, 2011 2:49 PM
BOTU: "If TSA pat-downs are rapes, then are all police pat-downs also rapes?"
They most certainly are, if the police officer also jams his/her fingers hard up the victim's vagina multiple times by force and against her will.
BOTU: "If a TSA pat-down is a "rape,' then when I pinch a girl's rear in a bar, is that "sexual assault"?"
It most certainly is, if you also jam your fingers hard up her vagina multiple times by force and against her will.
BOTU: "And if I smile at a girl on an elevator after the doors close, is that "sexual harassment"? "
It most certainly is, if you also jam your fingers hard up her vagina multiple times by force and against her will.
BOTU, your blatant lying and misrepresentation isn't fooling anyone.
Lobster at September 7, 2011 4:32 PM
By the way, about this BOTU idiot's rantings, the answer is yes: police officers have been arrested and prosecuted for sexual assault committed under the pretense of a patdown. See, for example, the story of LAUSD police officer Ian King:
http://www.laweekly.com/2009-09-03/news/lausd-39-s-finest/
A government job doesn't give you a free pass to touch anyone you want however you want.
Chris Bray at September 7, 2011 5:07 PM
Lobster: From what I can determine, the TSA agent did not penetrate Alkon's now-famous vagina. I assume Alkon was wearing clothes during the pat-down, and so penetration would have been impossible. I assume the TSA agent, through a gloved hand and through Alkon's clothing may have touched the Alkon's somewhat less-famous labia, although we may have to consult a gyno for exactitude.
A "rape" is supposed to be penetration, especially for sexual intercourse.
My West Hollywood proctologist does perform clinical examinations of orifices, in what he always jokingly refers to as "work."
If Alkon ever claims TSA anal rape, perhaps we can refer questions to him. I wonder if Alkon's anal area received the same treatment, and if so, should she not also claim "anal rape"?
I don't see what I am putatively misrepresenting or lying about.
BOTU at September 7, 2011 5:10 PM
Hey, Amy: sue the TSA creep for "Intentional Infliction of emotional distress"!
That's what they do here in NY when someone pulls a stunt like that.
Phil at September 7, 2011 5:35 PM
For those of you who state that Amy is "trivializing rape":
Just what about this situation meets with your approval?
Is it your abject submission to authority, the idea that you are presumed guilty, the issuance of uniforms to ridiculous people, the expansion of State powers? What is it that you like?
Because I get the impression that some people are looking forward to being abused while they are told lies about providing for their "safety".
You haven't even noticed the agents don't change their gloves between patdowns. Maybe you should look up "masochism".
Radwaste at September 7, 2011 6:03 PM
Rad's right. These people are completely missing the big picture here (cognitive clog?)
These are not people I want anywhere near my vicinity.
Feebie at September 7, 2011 7:43 PM
"Just what about this situation meets with your approval?"
Nothing, but is that really the point?
If you picked up a drunk girl in a bar, took her to your apt, and she passed out in your bed, then the next morning, cried "rape", am I supposed to approve of anything that happened? No. Does that mean she was "raped"?
Even if you felt her up a little in the middle of the night. Let's say you touched her crotch - the top of your hand hit her vulva through her clothes. Does that mean she was "raped"?
I think Amy would be the first to say that it doesn't. And I really respect Amy, so I'm having a hard time reconciling her normal stance on crying rape with this one.
I get the abuse of power of the TSA, but the rape thing I just can't reconcile. Isn't this association - with the mere touching of anywhere near the vagina and rape - precisely one we don't want women to make?
lovelysoul at September 7, 2011 8:08 PM
(Let it be known that of all of Amy's regular commenters, I was the first to identify "lovelysoul" as a psychopath, back in October of last year. It's the kind of judgment that you don't want to get wrong, and I nailed it.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2011 8:19 PM
"I assume Alkon was wearing clothes during the pat-down, and so penetration would have been impossible."
Thank you for proving once and for all you have no experience with female genitalia or sexual contact of any kind. There are MYRIAD fetishes involving penetration through clothing. Also with gloves. And probably plenty with both together.
momof4 at September 7, 2011 8:30 PM
LS - and others - it may interest you to know that to simplify things for those in the military, the Uniform Code of Military Justice uses the term, "penetration, however slight" in the case of sexual assault.
But, don't miss the plain fact that TSA actions are not magically OK if they quit rubbing ladyparts.
It's going to be both a blessing and a bother that the public viewing this will be fascinated by sexual issues and completely ignore Constitutional ones - exactly as they have done for numerous government officials involved in scandals.
Radwaste at September 8, 2011 2:33 AM
On the definition of "rape" see CA penal Code section 261 and following, especially 263. On why any lawsuit by the TSA agent in CA will not last long, see Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.16, 425.17 and 425.18. And the charge would be classified as "hyperbole" even though it may be legally correct.
The TSA agent loses.
Susan Amerson at September 8, 2011 8:33 AM
This country needs more Amy Alkon's. i can't understand why it is people are in an uproar over government spending, but most are comfortable with airport groping.
An act is considered criminal sexual contact if it is done for sexual gratification OR to degrade or humiliate the victim.
If you are groping airline passengers in a public airport, you must know that it is a humiliating experience for the person being groped.
Michael at September 8, 2011 2:35 PM
Dear Ms. Amy
I Pray that you win your case as you should. Based on the "Facts" and Merits not only due to 1st Amendment Rights but also including 4th & 14th which if the people would read. I sum it up very breifly as Whereas "All" Human Beings should be safe in there persons, homes, etc. I vehemently disagree with Mr. Martin's Posting. I too am a man and had to endure infamy during my childhood the rape of my mother on 2 different & separate occasions. I don't think this individual would want anyone touching, probing, inserting etc. anything on his (female) loved ones. Alas he must be part of the large ignorant and or brainwashed ones. Wake up America!, heed the warnings lest we end up as those whom have had to endure slavery, genocide and worse in the name of the "State" protection which equates to the loss of "Freedom". The most dangerous words in the english language "We are from the Government and we are here to help". GOD SpeedMs. Alkon.
Francisco at September 9, 2011 10:12 AM
If you ever need help paying for your legal proceedings, I suggest you simply open a pay pal account, because there would be literally thousands of us willing to make sure that its well known that the State or agents thereof cannot do ANYTHING they want with no reprocussions!
Erica at September 14, 2011 9:06 AM
Amy you are my hero. Not only are you super smart but your fashion sense takes my breath away. After all who else could look so fabulous in a gold gown with black gloves carrying a fly swatter.
I hope the TSA sweat over this one. They are such morons.
Jess at February 15, 2012 7:22 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/06/the_tsa_agent_w.html#comment-2981379">comment from JessJess, thank you so much. Planning more civil disobedience.
Amy Alkon at February 15, 2012 7:23 PM
Leave a comment