The latest TSA ridiculousness thread

[Undertoad]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...rch-rape.shtml

After a particularly aggressive patdown in March that might be better termed a feel-up, advice blogger Amy Alkon graphically described how she sobbed loudly while a TSA agent put her hands “into” her — four times. She screamed “You raped me” after the LAX patdown and took the agent’s name with plans to file charges of sexual assault. Those plans fell through after consulting an attorney, but she did blog about it and included the agent’s name, thereby inflicting her own assault — on the agent’s Google search results.

The TSA officially apologized to her and gave their agent additional instruction on proper pat-down technique. Ha! Ha! No they didn't, and the TSA agent has filed a threatening lawsuit in order to demand $500,000.

The TSA agent then hired a lawyer who contacted Alkon asking her to remove the post, threatening her with a defamation lawsuit, and asking for a settlement of $500,000. "Rape is a very serious charge," writes lawyer Vicki Roberts on Thedala Magee's behalf.

[sexobon]

I'd like to see this one go to court. The respondent's attorney claims rhetorical hyperbole is protected speech; however, what I have previously read on the subject is that alleged defamation involving a person's means of earning a living is considered quite differently from the cited case studies. Judges may be more inclined to side with plaintiffs against respondents who used inflated language to exaggerate claims. Respondents are required to be in better control of their emotional displays when they're attacking someone's livelihood. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as defamation: everyone could just say "Well, that person really upset ME; so, I can say whatever I want.

[ZenGum]

I'd love to see it go to court, to emphasise to the public just how outrageous the situation is. The TSA has set itself up as a bunch of untouchable (SWIDT?) bullies beyond the law, I hope that gets ended.

And she might win. To prove rape as a crime, she needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt. To prove rape as a civil claim she only needs balance of probability. To defend against defamation claims, she only needs to prove her statements were "reasonable" to balance of probability. That is very doable.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I'd love to see it go to court, to emphasise to the public just how outrageous the situation is. The TSA has set itself up as a bunch of untouchable (SWIDT?) bullies beyond the law, I hope that gets ended.

And she might win. To prove rape as a crime, she needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt. To prove rape as a civil claim she only needs balance of probability. To defend against defamation claims, she only needs to prove her statements were "reasonable" to balance of probability. That is very doable.

Now all she needs is an unbiased court of law and an honest judge...

[infinite monkey]

Not bloody likely. The judge in the town has bloodstains on his handssssssssssssss...

[monster]

stuck the side of her gloved hand INTO my vagina, through my pants.

how is this possible? what kind of vagina does this woman have? W-I-I-I-D-E?

[infinite monkey]

Her bagina is not of this earth.

Plus, she probably had on her travelin' clothes: stained baggy holey sweatsuit.

[sexobon]

While the article doesn't mention the alleged victim considering a civil suit after being told criminal charges were not a viable option, it seems unlikely that course of action wasn't discussed and also rejected which is why she ended up only writing about her grievances.

When the alleged victim writes "This woman, and all of those who support this system deserve no less than this sort of unpleasant experience, and from all of us." [bold mine], she damages her own credibility by inferring the end justifies the means of her retaliation against a system she opposes. That makes the veracity of her every claim suspect.

I don't think the judicial system here will allow anyone to subvert TSA security procedures through extortion via threat of defamation. If she could get away with that, so could enemies such as terrorists. Her position is weak.

[footfootfoot]

If you check out her blog she comes off as an attention lady of the night.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

If you check out her blog she comes off as an attention lady of the night.

Too bad her genitalia can't talk to tell us what really happened ... dumb cunt.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Too bad her genitalia can't talk to tell us what really happened ... dumb cunt.

I imagine it would be something like this:

[Clodfobble]

My personal guess is she really means between her labia, not into her vagina itself.

[Nirvana]

I feel like an actor on "The Good Wife" but, here goes; all she needs are the 3 words "in my opinion" proceeding her so called, protected free speech

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by monster

how is this possible? what kind of vagina does this woman have? W-I-I-I-D-E?

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Her bagina is not of this earth.

Plus, she probably had on her travelin' clothes: stained baggy holey sweatsuit.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

My personal guess is she really means between her labia, not into her vagina itself.

Her attorney seems to have recognized that and attempted damage control by cleverly saying "vulva" instead of "external genitalia." The former word starts with the letter "V" as does the word "vagina" and the difference may be lost at a glance. The term "external genitalia" (the definition of vulva), which wasn't used, would have clearly denoted the lack of penetration into the vagina. For many people that would mean the difference between use of the word "rape" versus "molestation." They've taken advantage of the fact that the word "rape" CAN be used to mean ANY sexual assault. I found the alleged victim's statement "stuck the side of her gloved hand INTO my vagina" [sic] not only likely to be inaccurate; but, in conjunction other untoward language seemingly fraudulent.

[Pico and ME]

I love that show