 |
| (Image source) |
On September 22, 2011, H.R. 3011 was introduced in the House. It is entitled the “Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act of 2011” and it contains some curious language.And who is the Statist Prick introducing legislation making a felon of someone mocking the unionized gropers and clock watchers who are killing our air travel industry? Republican Mike Rogers.
...
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.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. Notice there is no exception in the above language for parody.
When I become King, I shall take pleasure in exiling Legislators who make it a crime to mock pedophiles in uniform.
Alabama GOP Representative Mike Rogers, you are an idiot - thinking that you can repeal the First Amendment ("Let the courts decide"). You are also an evil man, protecting the people who do this when you should be calling for them to be prosecuted.
Remember, folks, there are statist pricks like Rep. Rogers in both parties. The Democrats aren't the problem, and Republicans aren't the solution.
Me too, me too. Love my country, hate the government.
ReplyDelete10-4!
ReplyDeleteThis interpretation is not correct.
ReplyDeleteSection 295 explicitly states that it becomes an offense only when a person not connected with the TSA or air marshals uses identification or imagery *specifically* intended to fool the public that you are a member. Think a guy carrying a badge to get a free flight or a pedophile claiming he's with the TSA so he can grope kids (I guess because he doesn't want to go through training and legitimately get into the TSA to grope kids).
I run into this from time to time particularly with state weapons' laws. You don't NEED to exempt something like satire or snark because that's already contained in your 1st Amendment rights. You only need to exempt something where the lack of exemption would create specific confusion. Folks often ask me if their everyday carry knife is legal because they saw nothing listed in the laws that allowed it. If it isn't specifically mentioned, it IS allowed.
Be worried IF the bill contained prohibitions against satire, spoofs, or mocking--because then, something IS being restricted.
There's nothing strictly objectionable with the language of the bill per se. Indeed, many of its provisions would be good things. Rather, I think we should look to eliminating the need for the TSA overall.
Above, please read "..IF the bill contained allowances for satire, spoof, or mocking..." Because by listing something as allowable, something else you'd think is fine must evidently not be.
ReplyDeleteIf you're libertarian, the LESS the bill lists, the better.
It's an unnecessary law; the only reason they are bringing it up is because someone at the TSA is feeling all butthurt because they are being mocked and decided to get someone to pass a law.
ReplyDelete“The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.”
— Gaius Cornelius Tacitus
Um, no--there's no prohibition of making your own gag logos and spoofs. I've read the bill: it's pretty clear.
ReplyDeleteAll they intend to remedy is the absence of prosecution from someone going out, making a red polo shirt with the TSA logo (or making a logo that looks official enough), and walking through the airport posing as a TSA person.
That's the gist of it. We'd be better served objecting to the TSA as a whole--or if you like, a hole--rather than a minor clause of a bill to remedy a gaping hole in their methodologies.
Czar isn't their already laws against fraud and posing as a government oficial.
ReplyDeleteHow about just enforce the laws already on the books. I always find it funny when someone does one thing and brakes half a dozen laws, meaning they all say roughly the same thing for different reasons.
Sigh...,
Josh
Eventually, one of the victims of the TSA will retaliate in a more violent fashion against them. Right-thinking people need to stand ready to practice jury nullification on their behalf should the case come to trial.
ReplyDelete