Airport Security: Maintaining U.S. citizens’ Rights
Aaron Tobey wrote a protest slogan on his chest then went into an airport, removed his clothes, and was arrested for public indecency. Subsequently, Tobey sued the TSA, but the case (U.S. vs Aaron Tobey) was thrown out like most cases brought against the TSA. Our country was founded on with a strong emphasis on individual rights. This focus on individual rights is written into our constitution and in many laws. National security is also an important subject for the U.S., especially in the midst of an outbreak of global terrorism. For the most part, national security and individual rights do not need to conflict with one another, but there are places where they come into conflict, such as
…show more content…
citizen (Seven n.pag.). However, there is an exception that is exercised when it comes to airport security, this exception is known as the Administrative Search (Seven n. pag.). The Administrative Search Exception is justified on the grounds that the search serves society, and is not used just to please law enforcement (Seven n.pag.). The TSA often compares these searches to similar searches performed on prisoners (Seven n.pag.). Prisoners have their body cavities searched to ensure that they are not hiding an object that could cause harm to themselves or others (Seven n.pag.). The TSA uses full-body scanners and pat downs to accomplish the same goal prison guards have, preventing people from harming themselves and others (Seven n.pag.). People face legal challenges when trying to bring suit against the government and their employees (Seven n.pag.), because it is a struggle for them to prove that they have been injured (real or perceived) by the screening process (Seven n.pag.). Even though the TSA has added more layers of screening over time, any machine or process that the TSA implements must be pre-approved by a federal court to make sure it complies with the Fourth Amendment (Seven n.pag.). The FDA’s position is that radiation given off by a full-body scanner is not harmful to the human body (Seven n.pag.). The radiation dose of a full-body scanner is one-hundred times less than one day spent in Miami and three-hundred times less than being on a two hour flight. Due to these statistics, if a person claims bodily harm due to the full-body scanners’ radiation the case will most likely be thrown out (Seven n.pag.). The court considers the person’s expectation of privacy and the court makes sure the TSA provided the person sufficient alternatives (usually just one alternative) when being screened (Seven
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
The First Amendment of the United States gives citizens the five main rights to freedom. Freedom of speech is one of the rights. If people did not have the freedom of speech there would be no way of expressing one’s self and no way to show individuality between beliefs. This Amendment becomes one of the issues in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District Supreme Court case that happened in December of 1969. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines there were five students that got suspended for wearing armbands to protest the Government’s policy in Vietnam. Wearing these armbands was letting the students express their beliefs peacefully. Many people would consider that the school did not have the authority to suspend these petitioners because of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
In the twenty century, the U.S society was in the period of tending to be a human base society. The laws in America were introduced to create a fair and regulated society for its citizens. The First and Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution granted that the U.S citizens have the freedom of speech. And the New York State had its law of Criminal Anarchy Act since 1902 for “organized government should be overthrown by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive head or of any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means (n.p).” The citizen in the any state of the U.S should always both obey the state law and follow the national constitution. Otherwise, the citizen would get corresponding punishment for jail, community service or even death for most states. However, the case of Gitlow vs New York happened in 1925 that majorly argued about the U.S citizens’ guaranteed freedom of speech in the First Amendment of Constitution and the New York State’s Criminal Anarchy Act.
Since 9/11 there have been nine major security changes at airports. The most important changes are the liquid ban, which bans liquids more than 3.4 ounces from being on an airplane and the body-scan machines along with the enhanced pat downs. (Seaney 1)l/ The body scan machines are x-ray machines that scan the person for anything that could be used as a weapon. Enhanced pat downs are violating to some people as they do not like their private areas searched for weapons. But these pat downs are necessary to detect, find, and remove weapons that a TSA (Transportation Security Administration) agent cannot see with their own eyes. The last important change worth mentioning is that all special items including laptops, tablets, E-readers, and all electronic items have to be checked for explosives and other threats. These changes as well as other minor regulations for passengers give the TSA an extra line of defense while screening air travelers.
...ar issue came about in the case the United States versus Eichman. In 1989 (as a result to Johnson’s case) the United States passed the Flag Protection Act. This act made it a crime to burn the American flag unless it was properly disposed of due to damage. The Supreme Court ruled this case exactly the same because it resulted in the same issue that freedom of speech cannot be allowed based on the circumstance but should exist in all viewpoints from every aspect. (Oyez). The fault in both cases was that the first amendment cannot exist sometimes, it has to exist all the
In America we are given certain rights by the government to follow. Such as, the first Amendment, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.” So, this right is given to us as Americans we should be able to say and do as we please. Yet, what the amendment fails to leave out is that we are not allowed to infringe on our fellow Americans rights to do the same. In, The People vs. Larry Flynt, Larry took the First Amendment right to a new level. When examining Larry Flynt, there were mixed opinions between the masses, some said he was a crusader for the First Amendment, while others said he was a horrible smut peddler. Larry Flynt unpleasantly exploited and abused
The First Amendment protects our rights of free speech and assembly, the independence of the press, and prohibits official establishment or unfair criticism of any particular religion. Free speech rights can be thought of as having two parts, the right to have free access to ideas, and the right to express ideas freely. The right to calm assembly goes with free speech given that demonstrations and other political activity are protected as expressive behavior. While government actions threaten all these rights stated by the First Amendment, it is our free speech and assembly rights which are most at risk. The USA PATRIOT Act contains provisions that will criminalize people's legitimate expressions of their political views. For example, the Act creates a new category of crime; domestic terrorism blurs the line between speech and criminal activity. Section 802 of the Act defines domestic terrorism as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of criminal laws" that "appear to be inten...
The United States of America has debated the topic of whether the rights of the majority should outweigh the rights of the minority from the time before the nation was formed. The idea of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness was placed in the Declaration of Independence because these ideals were what the colonies based their decision to part from Great Britain on. This idealism carried on into the creation of the Constitution and many of the laws that followed. This is evident throughout the United States’ history with specific events such as the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, Brown v. Board of Education decision, and the Japanese-American Relocation during World War II. In more current events, the Patriot Act must be considered.
In a world where terrorism, war, and economic instability are ever looming threats it’s not a wonder why the limits on the freedom of the individual can come into question. This is especially true when the country where these limits are brought into question is one of the world’s leading powers in: democracy, economics, social welfare, military force, and foreign politics in general. This country, of course, is the United States. Unfortunately, even with the country’s democratically centered government, there is still a debate on whether Americans have enough protections for civil liberties or not. A few key areas of argument on civil liberties and hopefully provide enough information to the reader so that he/she may deduce an educated opinion as to whether Americans have enough protection for civil liberties or not.
Long a polarizing issue, a balance between civil liberties and national security has constantly trailed America’s pursuit of happiness. Civil liberties are defined as rights for each individual person that serve to protect said individuals, by law, from unjust governmental interference, and encompasses all interference that may infringe on given rights. Incidentally, America has sucumb to such infringments within its lifetime, some early in its history, and some with recurring now with vestiges of the more prominent liberty violations which had reigned before. A much more recent example, terrorist attacks offended on September 11 shook our nation and brought with it government reform that many had not seen before. And with these governmental reforms, America has begun to backlash after more and more information about these unjust offenses has begun to leak from both prolific media outlets and workers in government themselves. The attacks committed on September 11, 2001. Although initially intended to protect America, the war on terror has begun to encroach on civil liberties and the ...
Look around you America. Your world is changing. Suddenly it’s no longer safe to fly in airplanes, attend sporting events, or just open your junk mail. Almost daily, news of threats and security breach’s litter the airwaves, leaving many asking the same question. “How can we make our country safe again?” Unfortunately, there isn’t a simple answer. America is united in the cause, but divided over the methods of preventing terrorism. At this time of uncertainty, many are urging Americans to “give up” some of their freedoms and privacy in exchange for safety. Regrettably, this wave of patriotism has spilled over, and is beginning to infringe on our fundamental liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights. Since the September 11th terrorist attacks those who have made comments contrary to popular beliefs have prompted much debate about free speech. When America experiences some great trauma, our freedom of speech often faces its own trauma.
Goodwin, Chuck. "Airport Security & Body Scanners: An Overview." (n.d.): N. Pag. Rpt. In Points of View Reference Center. N.p.: N.p., 2013. Web.
The Constitution is the cornerstone of our freedoms, without it, our freedoms would not be protected. Many individuals think that the Constitution states that we have a right to protest on public and private property; however, this is never said in the First Amendment. (Freivogel) This; however, does not mean that we have no right to protest; it means that protesters may be arrested for expressing views on public property, and if you are private property the owner is able to press charges because of trespassing. The Constitution also states that “the right to protest does not include the right to camp out.” (Freivogel) This means that individuals cannot stay overnight in public or private property in an act of protest. (Freivogel) Individuals may not protest during the night because they will be disturbing the peace. “The government can place restrictions on time and place for protesting.” (Hentoff) A federal, state, or local government may put restrictions on unreasonable times and they may say that individuals are not allowed to protest in a certain area, but this does not mean that they can restrict a certain group from expressi...
Security is the state of being free from danger or threat. The increase of terrorism in America had aroused a legislative request for heightened security. Strengthening security would also lead to invading Americans' privacy. Privacy is the state of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. While numerous people feel that security for the whole nation dominates over the privacy of an individual, many others think that heightened security measures will invade their personal privacy and will allow the government to exceed moral limits. Regardless to the political circumstances or the climate, protecting individual rights is predominant to strengthening security in several ways. Americans constitutional rights would be taken away and people would no longer feel safe anywhere if they believed that someone was always watching them. Also, protecting individual rights is paramount to allowing the government to overstep their boundaries and abuse their power. Documents A, B,
Jeffrey Rosen, of the Washington Post, writes a great article regarding the needs of safety when weighed against personal freedoms. “The TSA is invasive, annoying - and Unconstitutional” does well in explaining that the courts do acknowledge that there is a public safety need for certain searches at the airport. It also go on to show that people, when given the choice, are more opposed to pat-down searches than they are with the “naked” scanners of the TSA. These searches, however, do not limit the peoples’ right to procedural due process. The article go on to compare the TSA’s screening methods, with that of the Netherlands. It points to advances in “blob” screening, as opposed to the “naked” scanners the TSA uses. The “blob” scanners do provide more false positives, but as technology improves, so will these minimally invasive scanners (The TSA is invasive, annoying - and unconstitutional. 2010).