[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Watch this video or read the following at your own risk. Trust me, this is more than a little disturbing. Recently on Hannity’s show, the host asked Gloria Allred if she had been patted down by the TSA. Cringe-inducing weirdness follows:
Sean Hannity: Did they touch your body parts?
Gloria Allred: Yeah, they did and it was a first time anybody touched them in a long time and frankly, I liked it.
You can watch the video (and Sean Hannity cringe), here.
Meanwhile, a woman is suing over an incident where a TSA worker (allegedly) pulled down her shirt and bared her breasts for the entire airport to see:
As the [female] TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff’s blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs’ breasts to everyone in the area[.]
And if this woman’s allegations are to be believed, things actually manage to get worse:
The suit also claims that other TSA employees continued to joke and laugh about the incident for an extended period of time. The woman was distraught over the incident and left the screening area so an acquaintance could console her, the suit said.
When the woman re-entered the boarding area, employees once again began joking about the matter, the suit said.
“One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that ‘he would just have to watch the video,'” the suit said.
If that is true, then every person who did not at least fake contrition would be fired. And that would go double for the guy who suggested he was going to watch the video of her humiliation. But if this representation of the suit itself accurate, I am not sure how successful it might be in the end:
The lawsuit claims, among other allegations, that federal employees were negligent and that employees intentionally caused the woman severe emotional distress by joking about the incident after the woman re-entered the airport screening area.
Negligence is a failure to exercise an ordinary degree of care, in this case when carrying out the scan. That seems highly debatable, depending on the facts, although it should survive a motion to dismiss. But as for intentional infliction of emotional distress, my understanding is the threshold had to be much, much higher to count. If I was her lawyer, I would be looking into gender discrimination, specifically sexual harassment, as a claim.
And notice something else. The newspaper article treated this woman much like a rape victim by refusing to identify her.
Oh, and if you really don’t want the TSA to see your junk, you could purchase “Flying Pasties.” Yep, that is right, you can wear things under your clothes that allegedly can’t be seen through, which can include imagines of a middle finger, the Fourth Amendment, or just humorously “objects are larger than they appear.” The company spokesman is shifty about how they are supposed to work, but let’s suppose it does. Do you really think the TSA will have a sense of humor when you are wearing something specifically designed to prevent their scan from seeing pretty much everything? They aren’t going to be concerned that there is something under those pasties, besides your naked flesh? I mean it defeats the whole purpose of these scans. Like them or hate them, if the scans are are legal at all, they will not let you get away with this.
I mean it is as crazy as saying you should be able to cover your face for your driver’s license photo. Which I plan to talk about later…
And they are lying about their procedures. Nice. It’s really hard to defend getting “handsy” with the children when you can’t even be honest about doing it.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]