Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Man Protests TSA With Nudity 434

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the inspired-by-invisible-children dept.
New submitter blindbat writes "John E. Brennon 'said he was fed up with being harassed by airport security stripped to his birthday suit while in an airport screening lane Tuesday evening and was arrested.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Man Protests TSA With Nudity

Comments Filter:
  • by alen (225700) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:18PM (#39724531)

    now every time he applies for a job he will come up on the sex offender search

    • by gl4ss (559668) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:24PM (#39724629) Homepage Journal

      ..and the interviewer if he googles will find that article and see why. the guy is a legend now. bet you 20 bucks he reads slashdot.

      • by Firehed (942385) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:32PM (#39724745) Homepage

        Neckbeard like that? No doubt :p

      • by ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:27PM (#39725583)

        Except he'll be filtered by HR, not by a clueful interviewer.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sirdude (578412)

      So, exposing yourself in public puts you on the sex offenders list? Since when? What degree of exposure are we talking about? How are "flashing" and "mooning" treated? :S

    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:37PM (#39724837)
      Yeah, people shouldn't stand up against abuses of their rights: there might be NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES TO IT!!!
    • Hooray for our puritanical society. Two people could beat the living shit out of each other in front of kids, which is almost certainly far more damaging to a kid's psyche than this incident, and as long as they don't press charges on each other, the most they'd get is a disturbing the peace ticket. Police officers will publicly taser (effectively, short-term torture) anyone who doesn't follow their instructions immediately and without question, although arguably that's a good lesson for a child to learn. But appearing naked in a context where they're voluntary observers at most (i.e. they can look away, and there's no stress at doing so because nobody is observing them back, making it more akin to seeing someone naked on an ultra-hi-def 3D TV than an encounter with a pervert), and he's a child molester. It's ridiculous, and anybody with an ounce of sense will see that if they actually look at the details, but the automated list escalates the offense from a silly if ill-conceived protest to a potentially life-ruining thing. I don't care if it was somebody protesting for increased TSA searches and power, the offense does not deserve that.

      I personally think this guy is a hero. If he needs any help with legal costs or finding employment in the future, I'll be donating for sure. My thanks to anyone who draws more attention to how screwed up the state of things is, especially if it's in such a funny way.

      • by NatasRevol (731260) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:53PM (#39725063) Journal

        Police officers will publicly taser (effectively, short-term torture) anyone who doesn't follow their instructions immediately and without question, although arguably that's a good lesson for a child to learn.

        Why the fuck would that be a good lesson for anyone, much less a child.

        Obey immediately or get tortured?

      • by sjames (1099) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:01PM (#39725191) Homepage

        Meanwhile, any kids who might have seen his protest will soon enough be fondled by the TSA, but that's somehow considered perfectly fine by the feds.

  • by Bradmont (513167) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:21PM (#39724579)
    This man is a hero.
  • So, (Score:4, Funny)

    by I Read Good (2348294) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:22PM (#39724595)
    what's my new hero's /. UID?
  • New signs: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:23PM (#39724607)

    "Do not strip until told to strip."

  • by scharkalvin (72228) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:23PM (#39724617) Homepage

    Did the TSA do a body cavity search before they called the cops?

  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:25PM (#39724659)

    I've got a cousin who loves to mess with people who mess with him. When telemarketers call, he tries to keep them on the line as long as possible, only to tell them at the end that he's not interested. When people try to push brochures or flyers on him, he grabs as many as he can carry, crumples them up in front of the sales drone, and throws them in the trash. He's quite clever and takes a great delight in his ingenuity (my favorite is when he goes off on telemarketers, yelling "I'm trying to masturbate here!!!").

    His answer to the TSA pat-down? He starts acting like he's getting off on it and then hits on the TSA agent (male or female) at the end of it.

    • by preaction (1526109) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:42PM (#39724913)

      Telemarketers are just doing their job. Tell them up-front "Please remove me from your list." and let them get on with it. This is another instance of "shoot the messenger."

      The people who get paid minimum wage to hand out flyers are also just doing their job. What happens when they go back to their boss and say "Some guy grabbed all my flyers and destroyed them." Think they're going to keep that job they desperately need?

      As for the TSA: Right on. That is the absolute correct response. Make them uncomfortable giving pat-downs, and maybe they'll put the pressure on the higher-ups.

      • by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:52PM (#39725055)
        When your job is to annoy me, you've crossed a line. I don't care what sob story you have, I make it a point to chew out every vendor cold-call and telemarketer that has the misfortune of dialing my number.
      • by RobertLTux (260313) <robert&laurencemartin,org> on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:05PM (#39725267)

        the best thing to have when dealing with Telemarketers (in the US) is a printed copy of 47CFR64.1200.

        in fact if they are any kind of smart they will hang up on you if they even think you are aware of the contents of
        " Title 47 - Telecommunication. CHAPTER I - FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CONTINUED). SUBCHAPTER B - COMMON CARRIER SERVICES (CONTINUED). PART 64 - MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS. Subpart L - Restrictions on Telemarketing, "

        and yes you can ask for 1 the person doing the calls name 2 the name of the business the call is on behalf of 3 a contact number for that business (and they are required to give correct answers)

        also btw you are allowed to record everything also (since any laws regarding recording drop out due to the telemarketers commonly recording things on their end)

      • by sjames (1099)

        All of the above have freely chosen to be public representatives of an obnoxious legal entity. They have all chosen to intrude upon others in exchange for a few bux (probably very few). Most often, any attempt to contact their employer will only result in a conversation with more peons who have also chosen to be public representatives of the same annoying entity.

        So, they're going to hear it from me.

      • by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:24PM (#39725547) Journal

        Telemarketers are just doing their job. Tell them up-front "Please remove me from your list." and let them get on with it

        No. The longer a telemarketer spends on the phone with someone, the fewer people he can harass. The fewer people he harasses, the less profitable the business model is. The less profitable the business model is, the less likely I will have to deal with telemarketers in the future.

        Don't be mad at me. Be mad at the people who run the economy for not providing honest work.

      • by Tom (822) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @03:28PM (#39726551) Homepage Journal

        Telemarketers are just doing their job.

        So are soldiers, TSA agents or, for that matter, suicide bombers. It doesn't make it better. Unless they are slaves or otherwise forced, they made a choice to do that job. It might've been a hard choice, bills to pay and all, but a choice nevertheless.

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        If telemarketers couldn't get anyone to work for them they would be out of business. If you don't want to catch hell from the public, then get an HONEST job.

  • by nxcho (754392) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:25PM (#39724661)
    Let us declare April 17 as Airport Security Nudity Day.
  • by ciderbrew (1860166) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:33PM (#39724763)
    Is there a law about taking Viagra and enjoying the patdown? Let the holiday start before take off. Not the best thing to do when wearing a Kilt I guess; but I don't claim this to be a wise idea.
  • by nimbius (983462) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:39PM (#39724865) Homepage
    We here at the TSA has been doing a spectacular job of undermining airport security and making a mockery of government policy in the wake of 9/11. we certainly dont need the help of airline passengers to continue this legacy, especially if in this case it takes all the fun out of clandestine patdowns and secret naked pictures. Now gentlemen, if you'll excuse me, i believe theres an 8 year old girl and an incontinent 72 year old diabetic that need some 'enhanced screening'
  • by michelcolman (1208008) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:55PM (#39725105)

    1. Seeing a naked man
    2. Having their eyes covered up when a naked man is seen

    I would much prefer to have my child see a naked man (and explain to her why he's doing it) rather than giving her the message "a naked body is a bad thing, something awful is happening, this man is evil". The naked man wouldn't bother her in the least anyway. Why make it so?

  • by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:00PM (#39725177)
    "His name was John E. Brennon"
    "His name was John E. Brennon"
    "His name was John E. Brennon..."
  • by tekrat (242117) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:27PM (#39725577) Homepage Journal

    Horrah for this man! We need to do EVERYTHING we can RIGHT NOW to defend and support his actions.

    For those of you that do not remember Cindy Sheehan, she was a lone war protester, who was ridiculed initially, by the media, by officials, and everyone else, but she bravely kept it up and turned the country around to questioning the war instead of just being "rah rah, go usa"

    This person now needs our support before he's thrown in jail and made to disappear. The media need to support him, NOT ridicule him, as I'm sure they will, assuming they cover this story AT ALL.

    We need to take the fight up and shed light on it, make the media question the TSA, and whether we're over-reaching in our response to 9/11.

    This dude has sacrificed himself for the rest of us. Don't let his sacrifice be in vain.

  • Only place I know of (Score:4, Informative)

    by nilbog (732352) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:32PM (#39725661) Homepage Journal

    This is the only place I know of where you can be forced to expose yourself naked to others, be forced by law to allow strangers to grope you, then get arrested for indecent exposure.

  • by GoodNicksAreTaken (1140859) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:53PM (#39726009)
    I don't know what juris-dick-ion is on penis at Portland International or airports in general but Oregon has no obscenity laws due to the way the Oregon constitution is written. Since the arrest was made by Portland police it seems to indicate that this falls under local laws. The Oregon constitution's free speech language is why Portland has naked runs and naked bike rides every year without arrests. See State of Oregon v. Henry [wikipedia.org] Unless they have evidence of "attempting to arouse sexual desire" this appears to be clearly protected under free speech under the Oregon constitution.

    "Being naked in public in Portland is legal if it falls within the guidelines of ORS 163.465, which are included below. ORS 163.465. Public indecency
    (1) A person commits the crime of public indecency if while in, or in view of, a public place the person performs:
    (a) An act of sexual intercourse;
    (b) An act of deviate sexual intercourse; or
    (c) An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person."
  • Getting it fixed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by camperdave (969942) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @03:08PM (#39726217) Journal
    You guys aren't going to have this fixed by the time I fly into the States in July, are you?

I am the wandering glitch -- catch me if you can.

Working...