Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

ourlittlechatterboxes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 138 posts

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#91

Post by dalore »

ericb wrote: post #87
electromagnetic wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does a visit to the gynecologist count as sexual assault. Of course not, but why? Because, implicitly or explicitly, the patient has consented to being examined. In accordance with a medically necessitated test. If a gynecologist is sticking a finger in a womans vagina, whether s/he has implicit or explicit consent is sexual assault if performed under misinformation. If a doctor gropes my testicles or sticks a fing…

We're hackers here. Are we convinced someone dedicated could not hide something as deadly as a box cutter in a body cavity? So without the cavity search, this is just security theater.

Don't give them ideas.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#92

Post by phjohnst »

roel_v wrote: post #65
AgentConundrum wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consent is a large part of the equation with your doctor analogy. If I'm going to the doctor for an issue pertaining to, or in the area of, my genitalia, I'm walking into that examination knowing where it will go. If I'm having pain in a testicle, I know that the doctor is going to touch my genitalia. If I'm having pain in my throat, however, I can't imagine a circumstance where a doctor could convince me that he or…

"Also, I really doubt many doctors are in medicine to be able to fondle their patients." Just to be clear, and I'm not saying you said that I said that (uh...), I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of doctors are not in the profession for this reason (a reasonably large part of my family and friends are doctors, all of them fine professionals with nothing but the best intentions in mind). So just to make clear that…

I would definitely have a problem with this.

I'd argue that they have no more right to do a gynecological exam on a patient under anesthesia than they do to do any other procedure completely unrelated to the primary one. Absurd: could you imagine if you were getting your tonsils out and the doctor just decided to do an unwarranted prostate exam? Or perform liposuction as an added bonus. Or amputate a limb? All we're talking about is degrees of the same thing (being subjected to procedures that you have no chance of declining)- where do we draw the line once we go there at all?

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#93

Post by X-Istence »

Confusion wrote: post #84
agentultra wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty sick response and all too common. If you did not consent to be being touched in a certain way by another human being, no matter the circumstance, they have no right to do so. That is an assault on your person. She was not informed that this person was going to do the things they did to her. She was molested in public by a figure in a position of (supposed) authority. I cannot imagine what she must fe…

that you would dismiss this as "not a real crime" I do not dismiss it as 'not a real crime'. I dismiss it as sexual assault and I wish to strongly argue for not polluting the meaning of that crime with instances of someone touching you inappropriately. "Enhanced pat-down," is a shockingly sick euphemism for "molestation policy." I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in dange…

While I agree with the police officer example I do feel that is different. If I am getting arrested or am in a position where I have already broken a law then by all means I should be frisked in a way that allows them to verify I have nothing that could do any bodily harm to them. I have very limited rights when I am under arrest.

It is the pre-emptive before anything happens TSA security theatre that makes it worse. By traveling I have not broken ANY laws yet I am still being subjected to a search that is extremely invasive and could be considered sexual assault.

It is as if I was a bouncer (instated by the government) and each time you wanted to go to a bar or club I would need to frisk you in a way that made you highly uncomfortable and in any work place setting is considered sexual assault. People wouldn't stand for it. That is the case here as well, people won't stand for it.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#94

Post by jim_h »

Maybe it's be better if people stated it as they would like it to be 'stop treating us like terrorists'.

That's essentially what has happened. The government has decided that everybody is a terrorist unless proven otherwise. Any high ranking official who does not believe this idea is 'supporting terrorists'.

Will there be metal detectors at supermarkets if something happens at a supermarket. Would that be so strange? Some high schools already have metal detectors. Where does it end?

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#95

Post by phjohnst »

Confusion wrote: post #84
agentultra wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty sick response and all too common. If you did not consent to be being touched in a certain way by another human being, no matter the circumstance, they have no right to do so. That is an assault on your person. She was not informed that this person was going to do the things they did to her. She was molested in public by a figure in a position of (supposed) authority. I cannot imagine what she must fe…

that you would dismiss this as "not a real crime" I do not dismiss it as 'not a real crime'. I dismiss it as sexual assault and I wish to strongly argue for not polluting the meaning of that crime with instances of someone touching you inappropriately. "Enhanced pat-down," is a shockingly sick euphemism for "molestation policy." I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in dange…

Totally agree with your security theatre point, even all of this does nothing.

However, to keep in mind with the police, they must have a reasonable suspicion in order to search your person. They cannot simply stop everyone walking down the street and frisk them. And pretty much anything that the police do to you can be challenged in a court (obv whether you win is another thing, but the recourse is there). I think drawing parallels to (traditional) law enforcement practices is misleading.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#96

Post by X-Istence »

martinkallstrom wrote: post #63

I associate this with the previous discussion about response to bullying in school. The argument then was, should we teach our children to withstand physical abuse and report it to authorities after the fact? Or should we teach them to respond immediately as it happens and loudly, physically if need be, protest? In this case, the TSA agent obviously broke protocol. I can't see it as mandatory for the victom of the br…

The issue is that even if she did shout NO during this whole frisking business she might have caused much more trouble.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#97

Post by X-Istence »

sp332 wrote: post #81
lil_cain wrote: post #56

I like the implication that it'd be ok if she wasn't an American citizen.

American citizens have a lot of protections under Constitutional and federal law. Visitors have a lot fewer protections. Her citizenship didn't make the crime, it just made it worse.

Not only American citizens; as a green-card holder I have almost all of the same rights, the only right I don't have is the right to vote. I have the exact same constitutional rights as everyone else, even though I am a resident alien in this country.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#98

Post by protomyth »

A couple of links that mention the Ohio laws: http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-imposition/ http://kittywampus.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/tsa-enhanced-pat... http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_333

Doesn't really matter what words a person thinks are appropriate, it really matters what laws might have been violated and what the incident would be called under the law.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#99

Post by poet »

notahacker wrote: post #74
poet wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the minimum it is sexual battery [1] and sexual imposition [2] and it could be argued that it was gross sexual imposition [3]. Ohio doesn't even use the phrase "sexual assault" in its laws about sex offenses [4]. The point is, quibbling about terminology is silly. Any reasonable human being understands what the author of the blog post is getting at. She was touched in a sexual way without her consent, without any…

"Quibbling about terminology" isn't "silly" when someone is making a public accusation of a sex crime. Neither of us are lawers, but right there in the statutes you've posted is the line "Sexual contact means any touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or, if the person is a female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying…

The funny thing about your line of argument is that she didn't make a "public accusation of a sex crime" because "sexual assault" is not a sex crime that is defined in Ohio. If we're going to try to be pedantic here, let's actually be correct.

What definition of sexual assault are you using exactly? Your original contention is that the author is trivializing "real" sexual assault by using the phrase "sexual assault" in an inappropriate way, yet in Ohio no such a thing exists. So it's inappropriate according to what definition? What you're actually doing is inventing in your own mind what you think sexual assault should be and then getting angry at the author for violating your contrived definition.

Do you see why it's stupid to be pedantic about the specific phrase "sexual assault"? The author used the phrase sexual assault not to conform to a definition, but because she was touched in a sexual way and felt assaulted. In my opinion such feelings are perfectly reasonable in this situation. I would have felt assaulted had I not been given a warning.

Anyone who is quibbling about terminology in this thread is guilty of the phenomena that happens when nerds meet reality: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1880553.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#100

Post by roel_v »

devinj wrote: post #89
roel_v wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the following example is better (maybe I'm arguing more 'state of mind' than the point the OP's post was trying to make, I'm not 100% sure). Let's say a doctor performs an examination of the genitalia on a patient, without medical necessity. Let's say she does it without sexual intent, for example because she is still in training and wants to practice more on genital examinations (this may not make any medical…

Maybe the first question is whether it's assault. It's assault in Canada, at least, because the doctor was abusing his authority in order to touch you. This removes any possibility of consent.

I'm not sure. Why do you think this would be assault? I'm not familiar with Canadian law, but article 265(1)(a) defines assault as without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; I'm not sure that performing a physical examination under false pretenses is 'applying force'.

There may be Canadian case law clarifying this, I don't know, but prima facie it doesn't seem to me that your position is correct.

Note that other legal systems have problems with doing things under false pretenses. A woman claimed rape because her husband's brother slid into bed with her and initiated sex, in which she went along. The guy didn't disclose explicitly that he wasn't the woman's husband. When she found out she felt (justifiably) violated. Yet the guy was acquitted because there was no statute on getting sexual favors under false pretenses (there is now by the way, as a result of this case).

Post reply on HN