Man won't submit to security, TSA won't let him fly. Who's right?

LinuxGold said:
An invasion to one's private parts against their wish is an offense. Whether it is considered porn, child porn, rape, and what's what are ONE offense. Why worry whether it is child porn or not?
Click to expand...

right ....against their wish...they don't have to fly. It's not a right, it's a privilege.
 
craigm26 said:
Anything can be pornographic.
Click to expand...

To someone else's interpretation, perhaps.

However, it is often done with the intention to simulate erotic feelings. By just being naked, it doesn't make it pornographic. I used to take life drawing, we had plenty of nude models and I didn't find it to be erotically simulating at all. Only a pervert would though.

Sorry for going off topic.
 
Banjo said:
To someone else's interpretation, perhaps.

However, it is often done with the intention to simulate erotic feelings. By just being naked, it doesn't make it pornographic. I used to take life drawing, we had plenty of nude models and I didn't find it to be erotically simulating at all. Only a pervert would though.

Sorry for going off topic.
Click to expand...

:) exactly...sometimes there's a purpose in being naked that doesn't really stimulate a lot of people...especially TSA scanners looking at black-and-white enhanced x-rays most of the day.

I mean I'm not sure if something could be interpretated as sexually stimulating, but there's a lot of strange people and strange fetishes out there. :dunno:
 
Glenn said:
You and Reba agree that photo posted by DareDevel is child porn? Mkay.

How about a legal expert?
Click to expand...

doesn't matter. You will find a legal expert who will agree with our view and another legal expert who will agree with your view.

that's why this legal proceeding takes time and it's up to judges to decide on it based on both sides' arguments.
 
Cosmic Log - Will searches ever catch terrorists?

"Most risks involve tradeoffs of some sort. In this case it's a risk-risk tradeoff, between getting blown up on the one hand and feeling coerced into having your privacy invaded while being exposed to minute doses of radiation on the other. If Risk 1 -- getting blown up -- doesn't feel like a real possibility, you're less willing to live with Risk 2. If the negative qualities of Risk 2 -- radiation, coercion, invasion of privacy -- feel bigger, Risk 2 will matter more than Risk 1.
"It all adds up to a kind of a silly way to think about how to protect ourselves from the constant and real threat of bad guys and bombs on planes. But then, risk perception isn't just about thinking. It's about feeling too. And in this case, what feels right ... resisting a procedure that could keep us safer ... may actually make things worse."
 
Tousi said:
For many, it is part of their job to fly.....
Click to expand...

What jobs do you have mind?

For many, understanding the risk of flying is part of the gig. Just like me getting to work by driving my own vehicle.

1. Is it company policy that absolutely requires flight as the mode of transportation? ...in other words, it's part of a contract somewhere where it's stated that there are no alternatives whatsoever...and without time constraint penalties for declining to fly...


2. Or does the employee have the option of declining to use that transportation because A) they refuse to be scanned AND B) they refuse to be patted down?

3. Can their union/attorney defend them from utilizing this requirement?
 
Back
Top