TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court • Hacker News Board

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#71

Post by s73v3r_ » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

ihsw2 wrote: post #39

jacquesm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like when the now president of the United States did it?

There is a difference between exercising your freedom of speech and the social justice warrior crusading that the parent commenter is advocating. Nobody is above criticism, that much is certain, but we shouldn't cross the River Styx into a world where random acts of violence is the preferred method of political expression.

"There is a difference between exercising your freedom of speech and the social justice warrior crusading that the parent commenter is advocating."

Tell us, what exactly is that difference? What's the difference between going up to Scott Pruitt (when he was the EPA director) and telling him what an awful job he's doing, and when Trump tweets out a gif showing him performing wrestling moves on a personified CNN? Or when he calls journalists the "enemies of the people"?

"Nobody is above criticism, that much is certain, but we shouldn't cross the River Styx into a world where random acts of violence is the preferred method of political expression."

And where the hell is violence being done? Last I saw, the calls for violence have been from the Trump camp.

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#72

Post by s73v3r_ » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 5:14 PM UTC

mieseratte wrote: post #10

clubm8 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* The best interaction I ever had with the TSA was when I came upon a pair openly wearing their uniforms around a grocery store, so I was able to call them fascist child molesters right to their faces.* I'm no fan of the TSA, but do you think that was productive? Maybe direct your ire at the people at the top who make these policies instead. There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration offic…

> There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration officials confronted while dining for example. What is the progress / outcome? Have there been any changes in policy resulting from public confrontations?

The resignation of Scott Pruitt.

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#73

Post by crazypyro » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 5:15 PM UTC

jstanley wrote: post #69

newen wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait..so, a federal employee, if they are not a law enforcement official, can punch you as part of their job and not get into legal trouble?

No, a federal employee can punch you while carrying out their job and the federal government does not get into legal trouble. (Is the way I understood it from reading the post above.)

If punching someone* is within the scope of their employment by the federal government and the person doing the punching is not a law enforcement officer, you cannot sue that individual for intentional torts.

*not sure why it would be, if you weren't a law enforcement personnel

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#74

Post by s73v3r_ » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 5:15 PM UTC

DamnYuppie wrote: post #14

clubm8 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* The best interaction I ever had with the TSA was when I came upon a pair openly wearing their uniforms around a grocery store, so I was able to call them fascist child molesters right to their faces.* I'm no fan of the TSA, but do you think that was productive? Maybe direct your ire at the people at the top who make these policies instead. There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration offic…

> There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration officials confronted while dining for example. No there hasn't. It just makes everyone think these are petulant children. They ask for respect and equality of others but don't wish to give it to anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology.

"They ask for respect and equality of others but don't wish to give it to anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology."

In this case, "doesn't agree with their ideology" actually means, "Believes that many classes of people don't deserve human rights".

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#75

Post by mieseratte » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 5:16 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #32

ihsw2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration officials confronted while dining for example. Normalizing the harassment of elected officials is dangerous and it puts us on a direct path towards politically-motivated random acts of violence.

You mean like when the now president of the United States did it?

> You mean like when the now president of the United States did it?

Is this in regards to the "birther movement" or was he harassing politicians in the real world?

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#76

Post by miaklesp » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 5:16 PM UTC

cglace wrote: post #36

mindslight wrote: post #2

The best interaction I ever had with the TSA was when I came upon a pair openly wearing their uniforms around a grocery store, so I was able to call them fascist child molesters to their faces.

And you accomplished nothing. . . Seriously, most of these people are not "fascist child molesters" and probably already hate their job. Congrats on making them view the general population as people they detest a little more.

They all are!

Normal people just choose another job.

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#77

Post by mieseratte » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 5:18 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #72

mieseratte wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration officials confronted while dining for example. What is the progress / outcome? Have there been any changes in policy resulting from public confrontations?

The resignation of Scott Pruitt.

> The resignation of Scott Pruitt.

I hadn't realized that was his stated reason[0] for doing so.

Thank you for providing a real answer instead of just downvoting and moving along!

[0] - https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-res...

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#78

Post by commandlinefan » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 5:20 PM UTC

ihsw2 wrote: post #16

clubm8 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* The best interaction I ever had with the TSA was when I came upon a pair openly wearing their uniforms around a grocery store, so I was able to call them fascist child molesters right to their faces.* I'm no fan of the TSA, but do you think that was productive? Maybe direct your ire at the people at the top who make these policies instead. There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration offic…

> There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration officials confronted while dining for example. Normalizing the harassment of elected officials is dangerous and it puts us on a direct path towards politically-motivated random acts of violence.

> politically-motivated random acts of violence

Or see it headed off by declaration of martial law.

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#79

Post by jschwartzi » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

crazypyro wrote: post #73

jstanley wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, a federal employee can punch you while carrying out their job and the federal government does not get into legal trouble. (Is the way I understood it from reading the post above.)

If punching someone* is within the scope of their employment by the federal government and the person doing the punching is not a law enforcement officer, you cannot sue that individual for intentional torts. *not sure why it would be, if you weren't a law enforcement personnel

An example is a military servicemember or police officer who needs to assault you to prevent you from assaulting someone else. Normally you could sue but because they're preventing you from committing a crime by use of force they have immunity.

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#80

Post by grasshopperpurp » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

staunch wrote: post #64

mindslight wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that it's political speech, and given that I am unable to state this opinion in the direct venue - while I'm being assaulted and detained by them - I think it's justified. Or at least worth playing the grey areas if we're doing any individual action to stand up for our rights. Also, I was a decade younger. I don't see how anything you've said supports the characterization of "cowardly", unless you mean I was wr…

There are much more effective ways you could protest the TSA. Mouthing off to random employees in a grocery store was clearly not chosen based on effectiveness but laziness, so don't lie to yourself about the lack of venues. It's cowardly because you wouldn't use fighting words like this in a context where you believed they might respond like many reasonable people would: with a punch in the mouth. You're hiding behi…

>It's cowardly because you wouldn't use fighting words like this in a context where you believed they might respond like many reasonable people would: a punch in the mouth.

Fighting words - with regard to insults - is a purely childish concept. No reasonable person would punch someone in the mouth over an insult. The word you're looking for is immature - not reasonable.