It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Bill Would Criminalize Satire of TSA

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
House Bill Would Criminalize Satire of TSA

Normally I wouldn't post info from Info-Wars?

Why?

Because people focus on Alex Jones and not the issue. Let's TRY to refrain from turning this into another pro-con thread for AJ and look at the info with an eye to find the truth.

Because if this is the truth, it's a rather ugly one.

TSA pushing a bill that would (in effect) limit freedom of speech and expression if your F.O.S and expression include the TSA (and the list goes on and on, too much to quote here)...


In other words, if you print a t-shirt or produce a publication with a TSA logo, the government may soon be able to arrest and prosecute you.

The language states that it would be illegal to “convey the impression” that you are representing the TSA, but this interpretation would likely be left to federal prosecutors.

Why is this important?

Think about it. It will become a crime to 'convey an impression'.


In the past, satire was protected under the First Amendment, but it may soon be illegal to poke fun at the TSA or use its logo or even utter its name.


*Shakes head*

It's not enough they rob us of our dignity, grope our children, feel up cancer victims, discriminate and humiliate, now? Now they're treading where NO ONE belongs - ever! Our freedom of expression and speech.

But then again we all know what free speech does, right? It gives us power to protest and they'll damn the First Amendment to hell before continuing to allow us that freedom.

peace




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 

I don't yet understand your thinking on this issue. When I went to the bill, I found that it would be illegal to use the ATS logo (or other symbol):

in a matter that is reasonably calculated to convey the impression that the wearer of the item of apparel is acting pursuant to the legal authority of the Transportation Security Administration or Federal Air Marshal Service, or to convey the impression that such advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet, software, or other publication, or such play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Transportation Security Administration or Federal Air Marshal Service .(


OK, "reasonably calculated" might be difficult to show and a little vague, but I don't see the problem. If its clearly satire, then it would be fine to use the symbol. This looks more like trademark protection than anything else.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
So the Republicans want to kill off a little bit of free speech eh?

Disgusting.


(psst... before anyone gets pissy... This bill was introduced by Mike Rogers (R) of Alabama...

www.govtrack.us...

mike-rogers.house.gov...

en.wikipedia.org... )
edit on 14-10-2011 by negativenihil because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Years ago in Florida, a teen was arrested for "Impersonating a Federal Offier".. He had a baseball cap that said DEA on it.
He was NOT presenting himself as an officer, he was just a kid wearing a cap.


People printed T shirts that said in tiny letters..."i am in no way affiliated with or employed by..."
and in huge bold 4 inch letters " The Pinellas County SHERRIF'S DEPT" with a big sherrif's star.



Cops HATED it.. but didn't dare stop him.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


Thanks a lot for providing the link to govtrack. That's a great looking site, I'm in your debt.

One of the things that it told me is that the portion of the bill we're discussing amends an existing law. The existing law already has the same prohibition agaisnt using the symbols for the FBI, Secret Service, US Marshals, Housing and Urban Development, and more.

This isn't a new step or idea, it won't stop satire, it's not disgusting. They're just treating Air Marshals like US Marshals. I don't see the problem.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

First off, it's not 'my thinking' - but something I'm examining and bringing to the boards.


Whoever, except with the written permission of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Security (or the Director of the Federal Air Marshal Service for issues involving the Federal Air Marshal Service), knowingly uses the words ‘Transportation Security Administration’, ‘United States Transportation Security Administration’, ‘Federal Air Marshal Service’, ‘United States Federal Air Marshal Service’, ‘Federal Air Marshals’, the initials ‘T.S.A.’, ‘F.A.M.S.’, ‘F.A.M.’,or any colorable imitation of such words or initials, or the likeness of a Transportation Security Administration or Federal Air Marshal Service badge, logo, or insignia on any item of apparel, in connection with any advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet, software, or other publication, or with any play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, in a matter that is reasonably calculated to convey the impression that the wearer of the item of apparel is acting pursuant to the legal authority of the Transportation Security Administration or Federal Air Marshal Service, or to convey the impression that such advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet, software, or other publication, or such play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Transportation Security Administration or Federal Air Marshal Service


Use the words described above, in a 'circular' (cartoon?) implying endorsement... So I guess we'll be able to wear what we want and say what we want as long as there's fine print stating 'This cartoon or item was not endorsed by the TSA'?

That can be twisted in so many ways it's worthy of the best spin-doctors... But hey, you could be right. Me? I'd rather not take that chance.

peace
edit on 14-10-2011 by silo13 because: bbc



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by silo13
 

I don't yet understand your thinking on this issue. When I went to the bill, I found that it would be illegal to use the ATS logo (or other symbol):

in a matter that is reasonably calculated to convey the impression that the wearer of the item of apparel is acting pursuant to the legal authority of the Transportation Security Administration or Federal Air Marshal Service, or to convey the impression that such advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet, software, or other publication, or such play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Transportation Security Administration or Federal Air Marshal Service .(


OK, "reasonably calculated" might be difficult to show and a little vague, but I don't see the problem. If its clearly satire, then it would be fine to use the symbol. This looks more like trademark protection than anything else.


It have always been a crime,
to impersonate,
or to look like a law officers, or civil servant.
(With the intent or not, of crime.)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 

I apologize. I was sloppy in my writing, and therefore wrong, when I said it was your thinking. I had no reason to believe that to be the case.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
You have the right to free speach - but you better not use it...
They can't have people speak out against the state even if its done in a satirical or humerous way.. There are no constitutional rights in the new totalitarian states of america.. So smile when your groped and say thank you master that was good when you travel and are groped at the security checkpoints..



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
A republican? A Wrapped in the flag, singing God bless america republican taking away your freedoms? No way it can't be a republican. That hasn't happened since hmmm George W Bush.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

No problem at all.
I'm curious though about the wording. Please see my last reply to you. Do you think, in your opinion that I'm misunderstanding the issue? If so please say so, I'm always open for learning. I highlighted the parts I thought were supporting the topic? Your ideas?

Edit to add: This part:


...or to convey the impression that such advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet, software, or other publication, or such play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Transportation Security Administration or Federal Air Marshal Service
...

Perhaps I am reading more into it? Or, is it as simple as you can have that 'circular' (cartoon) as long as it has a disclaimer? 'This satire is not endorsed by the TSA'... Or, by simple using the lettering 'TSA' - even WITH a disclaimer - are you implying - by the use of their name, they are in support of the cartoon.

(Did that make sense, lol)...

peace


edit on 14-10-2011 by silo13 because: see added note above



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 

Dear silo13,

Thank you for your kindness and understanding.

I received the impression that you thought the bill would deprive us of some free speech rights. I didn't understand that position for a couple of reasons.

1.) That is the same language that has been used to protect the names of many other government organizations and I haven't noticied any diminuation of rights.
2.) For a valid prosecution based on something you wrote or said or drew, the government would have to show that the statement was reasonably calculated to convey the impression that the agency created or approved it.

Isn't there a lot of room for speech and satire under that provision? We certainly mock the Federal Reserve and they're protected by the same language.

Anyway, that was my thought. Thanks for your response.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
this "type" of vague wording opens the door for abuse, it always has, and always will.

ICE takes down websites on rumor and innuendo

this is no different. watch how soon Brian Haner (Guitar guy from Jeff Dunham) gets arrested and/ or his Video "eileen" gets taken off the web. ( I wont link to it but you can google it on Youtube warning NSFW)

you wont even be able to refer to that as "Those Sexual Abusers" anymore.

Any Modern laws that are currently written that have ANY vague wording will be used and and abused in ways we would never have considered in the past.

wait and see what happens if "PROTECT IP" gets passed. The free flow of speech online will disappear and sites like ATS and many many other will be removed..

This is the plan, remove the free flow of information exchange..

but now with OWS going on it's only a matter of time before the violence will increase and class warfare will erupt....

I'm keeping my powder dry, are you?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by damwel
A republican? A Wrapped in the flag, singing God bless america republican taking away your freedoms? No way it can't be a republican. That hasn't happened since hmmm George W Bush.


I think a good point would be there are Statists on both sides of the aisle. It's just that Democrats tend more toward the redistribution of wealth aspect.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 
I try to look at what's next.

What's next?
No satire against congress.
No satire against a president.
No satire against a government department, agency, representative, or affiliated organization.

In other words, SHUT UP

S&F before they take THAT right away from me as well.


edit on 14-10-2011 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


2.) For a valid prosecution based on something you wrote or said or drew, the government would have to show that the statement was reasonably calculated to convey the impression that the agency created or approved it.


I certainly hope TPTB think along the same lines as you! That would be a beautiful thing in this case and your explanation certainly brings me more understanding.

Thank you



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join