more on so much for TSA employees

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall () gmail com>
Date: September 22, 2005 2:57:47 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] so much for TSA employees
Reply-To: joehall () pobox com


On 9/22/05, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:

> Mayor of Houston says big big delays at Houston airport since 120
> plus TSAers did not show for duty

... and be careful what you say to TSA employees.

As Jason Schultz (EFF) explains below in a post entitled, "No First
Amendment right to tell TSA screeners they live in a bubble", the 6th
circuit just ruled that things you say which "interfere" with the
TSA's job is not protected under the first amendment... and it appears
that the TSA employee can determine what constitutes "interference".

---

<http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2005/09/no_first_amendm.html>

## September 22, 2005

### No First Amendment right to tell TSA screeners they live in a bubble

You can [wear a jacket][1] with "Fuck The Draft" on the back into a
court of law, but, according to the [Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals][2], don't even think about swearing loudly at any TSA
officials who make you miss your plane.

Today, the Court [ruled][3] that TSA can arrest and fine you for
swearing loudly and belligerently while you're being searched at the
airport security check because it "interferes" with the TSA's job.
The court rejected any First Amendment right to free speech, claiming
that while asking a "good-faith question" with profanity in it or even
"grumbling" with profanity would not be enough for a fine, the conduct
here somehow constituted more.

Specifically, the court ruled:


> Petitioner's conduct in this case, however, cannot be characterized
  as simply asking a good-faith question while using profanities or as
  grumbling about not being allowed to walk back through the metal
  detector or the delay in being hand-wanded.** Rather, Petitioner
  interfered with the screener in the performance of his duties by
  actively engaging the screener with loud and belligerent conduct,
  and, after being asked not to use profanities, by exclaiming that
  the screener should be in a different line of work, that he should
  live in a bubble, and that it was a free country in which he could
  say what he pleased.** Due to the escalating loud and belligerent
  nature of Petitioner's conduct directed at the screener, the
  screener needed to shut down his line and call over his
  supervisor. Thus, Petitioner's conduct interfered with the
  screener's duty to both thoroughly screen passengers and to do so in
  an efficient manner.

Is this really a justifiable difference? So its okay to ask the TSA
"Why the fuck do I have to take my shoes off?" but not to tell them
they live in a bubble or that this is a free country?

The other disturbing aspect of this opinion is how the court
characterizes when speech can qualify as "conduct" that interferes
with TSA official duties.  Here, the defendant was complying with all
instructions by the TSA official; he was just complaining about it
loudly while doing so. The only reason this "interfered" with the TSA
official doing his duty was because he let it interfere.  In other
words, if the TSA official had ignored Rendon's comments, no
interference would have occurred.  It was only by reacting to the
comments that anything changed.  This basically allows any government
official to arrest and fine you for "interfering" with their work the
minute they decide that they don't want to listen to you anymore, not
because you are objectively obstructing or preventing them from doing
their job.

I realize, of course, that getting yelled at makes it difficult for
anyone to do their job and especially someone in security who has to
pay close attention to things, but it worries me that the court here
didn't spend more time establishing a more objective standard for when
someone crosses that line.

[1]: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/cohen.html
[2]: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/
[3]: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0399p-06.pdf




--
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
<http://josephhall.org/>
blog: <http://josephhall.org/nqb2/>

This email is written in [markdown] - an easily-readable and parseable
text format.
[markdown]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/