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

31–40 of 138 posts

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

#31

Post by cookiecaper »

chc wrote: post #27
cookiecaper wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly agree. I think if you read the post it is definitely evident that although this was an unpleasant experience, the author is blowing things out of proportion. I know that may seem insensitive, but in the context of your post, I think it's important to be explicit about this point. The woman was given a rather invasive through-clothing security pat down. Of course this can be discomforting and invasive, espe…

I think that's attempted murder and torture. Using that as the bar for sexual assault downplays real victoms' experiences as well. (I don't mean this to disagree with your overall point. I just don't want to see the bar swing the other way where people feel like they're being told to shut up about sexual assault unless they were bludgeoned with a cinderblock.)

Yeah, it is an extreme example. I used it to counter the opposite extreme posited by the article, that even unpleasant or unwanted or unexpected touching qualifies as "assault", but perhaps I was not adequately clear that less murderous assaults are also extremely serious and damaging. I don't mean to downplay those at all.

In my mind, I suppose the bar for physical "sexual assault" is set around the forced handling of sexual organs or material in a sexual context. I acknowledge that psychological sexual assault can also occur. I don't mean this to exclude anyone with a legitimate case, but I think we have to be explicit if we are going to prevent self-important mommy bloggers from exploiting an unpleasant security pat down at the expense of the many victims who face serious repercussions from sustained abuses.

Such wolf-criers make things much harder on women who have histories that include legitimate abuses and I've seen that directly in people close to me. Perhaps that is why the grandparent and I both feel strongly on this situation.

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

#32

Post by aneth »

noonespecial wrote: post #15

I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well: We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyper…

I completely agree that while she may feel violated, this is not sexual assault, and to say it is detracts from any argument about the rationality behind this new policy.

Sexual assault requires a sexual motive and a sexual act, neither of which occurred here. The intent and action were both to search. A doctor touching the same place in the same way would not be considered sexual assault because there is no sexual intent.

The issues of notice and consent raised elsewhere are separate. If a doctor does not warn you that you will be touched, it is unprofessional, but not sexual assault. If you are committed to a prison and have no choice but to be put through a medical checkup involving touching private areas, it is non-consensual, but not sexual assault.

The hyperbole in the debate around this policy threatens any rational debate and conclusion.

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

#33

Post by melvinram »

cookiecaper wrote: post #25
noonespecial wrote: post #15

I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well: We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyper…

I strongly agree. I think if you read the post it is definitely evident that although this was an unpleasant experience, the author is blowing things out of proportion. I know that may seem insensitive, but in the context of your post, I think it's important to be explicit about this point. The woman was given a rather invasive through-clothing security pat down. Of course this can be discomforting and invasive, espe…

According to the various definitions on http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+sexual+assault it seems to me that she was in fact sexually assaulted. Getting touched in private parts without consent is an assault of sexual nature.

There are other sexual assault cases that are much more severe but you can't discount stealing $1,000 just because there are cases of people stealing $1,000,000. Theft is still theft and sexual assault is still sexual assault regardless of severity.

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

#34

Post by noonespecial »

chc wrote: post #27
cookiecaper wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly agree. I think if you read the post it is definitely evident that although this was an unpleasant experience, the author is blowing things out of proportion. I know that may seem insensitive, but in the context of your post, I think it's important to be explicit about this point. The woman was given a rather invasive through-clothing security pat down. Of course this can be discomforting and invasive, espe…

I think that's attempted murder and torture. Using that as the bar for sexual assault downplays real victoms' experiences as well. (I don't mean this to disagree with your overall point. I just don't want to see the bar swing the other way where people feel like they're being told to shut up about sexual assault unless they were bludgeoned with a cinderblock.)

It was also attempted murder and torture, in addition to sexual assault at its very worst.

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

#35

Post by siculars »

yakisoft wrote: post #13

Every day America looks a less attractive place to visit or do business with.

I hate to agree with you but I do. If I were a foreigner arriving at JFK I would be inclined to turn around and not come back.

I make it a point to thank every tourist I come across for visiting. I also thank Americans from other parts of the country for visiting NYC. Meeting all kinds of people from all kinds of far away places is part of the fun of living in NYC.

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

#36

Post by Confusion »

noonespecial wrote: post #15

I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well: We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyper…

  We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It
  sounds too much like hyperbole.
I fully agree: these people should talk to someone who has actually been sexually assaulted. That would probably knock some sense into them as to the difference between their experience and actual sexual assault. Being thoroughly frisked, in public, in broad light, where nothing bad could possibly happen, is being compared to being helpless and alone, with, usually, someone making violent threats that is doing far worse things than touching you? It's about as insensitive as you can get.

This bit is completely inexplicable:

  I had indeed been sexually assaulted because she did not
  follow the SOP (standard operating procedure) for the new
  search.

  During our first conversation, the TSA acting manager of
  the shift told me that the TSA agent who sexually
  assaulted me was supposed to inform me about the new
  search procedure and tell me when and where she was going
  to touch me
So let me get this straight: if the TSA agent had done the exact same thing, but would have commented on it a moment before doing it, it wouldn't have been sexual assault? Since when does sexual assault depend on the perpetrator announcing his actions?

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

#37

Post by stretchwithme »

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution explicitly protects the people from unreasonable searches.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

One might say that you submit to this as part of the deal to get on the plane. But if that were true, it would be between you and the airline, not the government. That means it really should be the airlines that decide how intrusive searches should be. And you would be free to choose an airline whose policies you agree with. And the airline would be free to reject you as a passenger.

The government has hijacked the relationship between you and the people you've hired to get you from point A to point B. Just because of previous lapses in their intelligence efforts enabled some people to do something terrible doesn't mean you lose your rights.

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

#39

Post by stretchwithme »

aneth wrote: post #32
noonespecial wrote: post #15

I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well: We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyper…

I completely agree that while she may feel violated, this is not sexual assault, and to say it is detracts from any argument about the rationality behind this new policy. Sexual assault requires a sexual motive and a sexual act, neither of which occurred here. The intent and action were both to search. A doctor touching the same place in the same way would not be considered sexual assault because there is no sexual i…

yeah, because it doesn't matter what the victim of an assault thinks, just whats going on in the mind of the assailant.

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

#40

Post by corin_ »

credo wrote: post #22
noonespecial wrote: post #15

I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well: We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyper…

>>but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example. This analogy makes very little sense. The doctor cannot stop me from visiting a different doctor (who may not insist on the same tests) and the doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests. The government can. The d…

"The doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests"

I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease would be slightly worse than failing to travel somewhere.

What you mean to say is that it's OK for a doctor to do it because in that case the recipient believes he is doing it for a good reason. If everyone going through an airport fully believed that these checks are an efficient way to ensure our safety in the air, far less people would have a problem.

Post reply on HN