Cursing at the TSA guy - that's a paddlin'

Great Debates
1

Here’s a quiz: does the First Amendment protect a person’s conduct when that conduct is repeated, loud, foul language directed at a TSA screener who has directed the individual in question to wait for a hand wand scan?

The passenger in question was in the screening line at the security checkpoint, walked through the metal detector, and set off the alarm. The screener told the passenger to step aside and wait for the screener operating the hand-wand to come over and hand-wand him. The passenger apparently believed it was his watch that caused the metal detector to go off; he took his watch off and started to walk back through the metal detector. The screener told him he could not go back through; he HAD to wait to be hand-wanded. The passenger responded that this was “bullshit.” While waiting for the hand wand to become free, the passenger yelled “Shit, man, can’t you get someone over here?” and “This is fucking bullshit!”

The screener asked the passenger not to use profanity; the passenger replied that if profanity bothered him, he was in the wrong line of work and that he should consider living in a bubble, and that he had a First Amendment right to say whatever he wanted.

To handle the escalating loud and belligerent conduct, the screener stopped his screening line and called his supervisor. When the supervisor arrived, the screener informed the supervisor him that the passenger was being uncooperative, unruly, and using loud profanities. The passenger objected to this characterization of his conduct and in rebuttal announced loudly that that all that was “shit.” The police officer on duty at the screening area came over to the scene and removed the passenger from the screening area.

The TSA filed a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty proposing to assess the passenger a $700 civil penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 1540.109, which prohibits interfering with an airport screener in the performance of his screening
duties.

The passenger argues that mere words, even loud and profane words, cannot interfere with a screener in the performance of his duties, and even if they can, they are protected by the First Amendment.

The administrative law judge found against the passenger, and he appealed to the federal circuit court.

I’ll leave the court’s ruling out for a moment.

How SHOULD the court rule?

2

IMO, unless he was actively resisting the screening or threatening anyone, then the profanity is irrelvant. It may be rude, it may even be unlawful on some other grounds (disturbing the peace, maybe?) but it does not constitute interference with the screener.

3

I’ll back Diogenes. No “compelling interest” at stake.

A “war effort” plea seems farfetched.

4

It depends.

Personally, I think the first amendment **does **protect profanity, so I wouldn’t agree with a ruling that said the profanity, in and of itself, was prosecutable. (But my personal beliefs are kinda beside the point when it comes to predicting court rulings.)

However, IIRC, the courts have upheld anti-profanity laws in some states. If one subscribes to stare decisis in this case, then if the offense was committed in a state with anti-profanity laws, there might be reason to prosecute.

I’m not familiar with the existence of federal anti-profanity laws, so unless the OP gives us some info on that, and if there are laws what previous court ruling exist, then we’re operating in the absence of some significant information.

I’m not a big fan of these “gotcha” type threads. There is simply no way that the average poster here can be familiar with the case law in this area, and I’m not going to be impressed if one of our legal minds pops in here with some obscure ruling that or law or regulation pertaining to airport screeners. I’m sure I could concoct plenty of “gotcha” threads in my field of expertise, too. Better to give us **all **the facts and then ask for opinions.

5

OTOH he may fail on the basis of his other non-compliant conduct.

6

I would think it would loosely fall under the “a peace officers peace cannot be disturbed” rule. Unless the city the airport is in has a law against “lewd and profane language in the presence of a minor” law or something.

7

My impression from the OP was that this is not a question of whether profanity may ever be prohibited, but whether the profanity in this case could be specifically prosecuted as “interference” with an airport security screener.

8

Interesting. On the one hand the passenger was not cited as using any physical force or leaving the area. Sound waves in the air is all that happened. “Shit” and “Bullshit”, perhaps even “fucking bullshit” are not obscene per se, as evidenced by their usage in many prime-time television programs(moreso the first two than the third phrase).

On the other hand, clearly it was a distraction to the screener. A verbally un-cooperative passenger may transition at any time to a physically un-cooperative passenger and present a real security risk, if not danger. As such this passenger clearly required more attention than a cooperative passenger asked to step aside for a wand screening(I have been screened thusly myself). Such distraction techniques could also be used to reduce the effectiveness of other screeners to allow a team of terrorists a higher chance of successfully smuggling weapons on board a plane.

So while I don’t find the actual words worthy of a fine, the behavior clearly interefered with the screener’s duties.

Enjoy,
Steven

9

I agree with Mtgman, the passenger interfered with the screening process, which delayed the other passengers.

I would add that we have always subscribed to limitations in human behavior. The 1st amendment is not a refuge for assault. The screener was subjected to abuse in a situation where he was not realistically allowed to respond to.

Personally I would have chastised the man for his boorish behavior. I’d start by telling him it was impossible for an adult to verbally abuse someone.

10

Don’t click here if you don’t want the resulting decision :wink:

11

I cheated; I looked at the ruling. However I’m glad I did, because there’s some rather significant information missing from the “quiz” as stated.

Specifically, it seems that 49 C.F.R. § 1540.109 prohibits more than just interfering with an airport screener; it also prohibits assaulting, threatening, or intimidating screening personnel. That last point makes the decision much less ambiguous, IMO.

12

Great thread title.

13

A Michigan man was exonerated by the Supremes, in the last year or so, after being convicted of hurling epithets in the presence of women and children after rolling his canoe. (He was cussing his predicament and not aiming his language at the children or women.)

14

Yeah, forgot to mention that. For those who didn’t get it all I can say is DOH!

15

The issue is not the swearing but rather that the guy was trying to get the attention of the TSA workers to get passed through the screening quicker. This can easily be which can be interpreted as interferring with the worker as it is not their responsibility to give special treatment to passengers arriving to the airport only 15 minutes before their flight.

16

“Intimidating” personnel?

I’m well over six feet tall, and a good 300#.

You’re telling me I could go to jail just for being NEAR a smaller-statured airport screener, who might feel intimidated by my size?

From now on, I shall pass through all security checkpoints on my knees, with fingers interlaced on my head. Ya know, just in case.

17

If you started yelling and cursing at them, it sounds like it. I think it’s clear that they’re talking about a passenger’s behavior, not his bearing.

18

I’m now picturing that highly tuneful exoneration. :smiley:

19

Wasn’t there an Adam Sandler movie that sent up the whole “act like an asshole, suffer like a terrorist” schtick?

Anyway, anyone who’s watched the reality show Airline on A&E and themself holds a service-sector job has wished that they too could call over a cop every time a customer acts inappropriatley. People yell at pharmacy staff all day long, which can cause distractions resulting in poisoning, but you don’t see cops stationed at Walgreens.

So on one hand we’ve got hte Mommy State, bailing out the airlines on matters great (bankrupcy, million-dollar settlements to ward off 9/11 lawsuits) and smalll (keeping the passengers cowed as they’re hearded along) versus the Entiltled Society, where people think they have a right to climb onto airplanes as effortlessly as walking in the park, and to act like babies if they don’t get their way.

20

That’s bullshit.

He did absolutely nothing to interfere with the screener’s performance of his duties, unless the court considered pointing out the stupidity of the screener’s actions to be disruption of those actions.