ACLU: Airport violates 1st amendment

ACLU: Airport violates 1st amendment

www.wane.com

FORT WAYNE, Ind. (WANE) - The ACLU of Indiana has filed a lawsuit challenging what it calls "restrictions on free expression" at the Fort Wayne International Airport. The case involves a U.S. Army veteran who is opposed to TSA screening measures.

According to an e-mail sent Monday by the ACLU of Indiana , the lawsuit challenges a resolution passed by the Fort Wayne - Allen County Airport Authority in November of 2010. The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Paul Anthony Stanton, opposes the new screening measures enacted by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Those procedures mandat

(visit the link for the full news article)

Now before anyone starts the crap about, not having the " right to fly" nonsense. Lets look at what the ACLU is doing, objectively. Now usually I'm not a big fan of the ACLU, not because they are attempting to take on something I'm strongly against, but because usually the ACLU pokes their noses where it doesn't belong.
But for once, it would appear, at first glance mind you, that they are attempting to use their notoriety for something positive for once. Taking on this travesty we call security, under the premise of " National Security ".
I would hope, that this example would be a model for other organizations to follow. But, I'm not getting my hopes up~

www.wane.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The article is about the airport attempting to restrain the soldier to "free speech zones" in his handing out of the Constitution and other related papers. They ACLU is taking up the fight due to their objection to "free speech zones" not due to airport/TSA security procedures.

To clarify the ACLU is not in any way seeking action due to the TSA screening policy.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


I understand that, and allow me to clarify, that I feel its in the best interest ( keeping in mind I'm no fan of the ACLU ), to voice out against making specific locations as areas to exercise the freedom of speech. Further, no matter on private or public property, the 1st Amendment says nothing of requiring any type of permit to speak ones mind. Keeping in mind that the Bill of Rights supersedes all other rules/laws/ and or regulations.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


My attitude to this sort of BS is this. The only people who prefer errosion of liberty , to getting blown up are the exact people that deserve to be blown up. Im British , but we are suffering errosion of freedom and liberty here too , and I hear fear based , pathetic, ill educated lackwits whining and moaning about how its so terrible, because unless the police can own us all , and unless we are always watched the terrorists will get us!
Well guess what, neither pat downs or those scanners would have detected that fellow who tried to blow his underpants up on a plane! Those pat downs and body scans didnt stop that gun runner from getting his product from the East Coast of the US to Manchester in England (incidentaly , if anyone here is from the US, do me a favour and keep those particular scumbags at home please? Really dont need more gun crime in the North of England, or anywhere really , cheers guys) so pretty much all these things do , is waste peoples time, invade peoples privacy, and freak people out.
None of the liberties that people have been prepared to sacrifice have actualy stopped any attacks. Better intelligence has , but thats it! All the infrastructure is a sham and another heap of BS designed to keep people feeling all safe and secure, as if we are all freakin children.
We can be stopped and searched by the police here, at any time, with no probable cause, no reason what so ever. We can be spied on if we are seen in the same bar as anyone who has ever had a crimminal conviciton, people have had anti terror spying methods used on them to ensure that they arent sending thier kids to school in the wrong catchment for christs sake. Thats not a terror offence , thats doing right by your kids!
Its the apathy and patheticism of those who WANT more anti terror laws, and those who WANT less freedom, and more government control, who ought to be blown up, and I hope some of them are reading this, because when those people do finaly die in an explosion on a bus, or in a plane,or on a train or anywhere else, when they are watching as thier legs fly off one way, and they spin off another, I hope they remember this thread, that someone warned them what they were in for.
In my nation Im hardly suprised at the total non reaction people have had to these scanners largely speaking, but in the states... I cannot understand how the airports havent been mobbed by anti privacy invasion groups. I mean there was a guy who features on your currency out there, who warned you all about this situation and what it means for your right to liberty ... seriously its a well known quote, and I would be doing you all a diservice to remind you who it was , or what he said, but suffice to say the messege obviously isnt one that folks are paying much attention to these days !

They are going to have an uphill battle here. The First Amendment is a protection of ones free speech and the restriction of the State making law abridging it. It does not restrict the ability of private individuals or entities the ability to limit the speech thereof; specifically within private property.

Where the ACLU battle will be is determining and successfully showing that airport property is public property. Some airports are owned by private entities that provide access to the public and airliners as a terminal for beginning and ending travel. Other airports are owned by the City/County. While some are a mixture of both.

My guess they will use such cases as SOUTHEASTERN PROMOTIONS, LTD. v. CONRAD, 420 U.S. 546 (1975) to support the claims that because a municipality has stake in the grounds of the airport, it is deemed a public space.

Even then, there was a case in Boston in regards to free speech within the Boston Commons. At the time, the Supreme Court ruled that the government had absolute power in prohibiting the speech within the Commons. Luckily this was somewhat corrected with Hague v. CIO. This ruling allowed the regulation of the speech, but not the prohibition thereof. Basically they sidestepped the issue.

It should be interesting because this has been a gray area in terms of how the Supreme Court views speech in areas such as airports and quasi-private property.