> These stupid things are also incredibly brave and necessary.
Suppose she had started reciting[1] the 10 commandments or jabberwocky? Would you have had the same reaction?
If you go with "the US constitution is relevant" then she's got a problem. She claims that she didn't resist a search. That can only be true if she thinks that reciting US constitution clauses on search aren't relevant to the situation, namely a search.
So, which is it? Was reciting the US constitution her way of refusing a search or was it just words?
[1] She wasn't "reading" anything - she was reciting various parts of the US constitution from memory.
> And you're saying "shame on her for refusing a search"?
No, I'm not. I'm saying that if you think that reciting the 4th amendment when going through TSA is relevant, that relevance would lead a reasonable person to believe that she was resisting the search.
I mention relevance because commenters are suggesting that reciting the 4th amendment is meaningful in a way that reciting jabberwocky would not have been.
OF COURSE it's meaningful in a way that reciting jabberwocky would not have been. Reading the part of the constitution which protects people from unreasonable searches without probable cause, while being forced to undergo a search without probable cause.
If it's still unclear how the amendment is meaningful in this situation, I'm going to ask that you go re-read the original article, then "letters from birmingham jail" and the whole bill of rights.
That being the case, her treatment was for resisting the search, not reciting the constitution. Reciting the constitution was merely how she resisted the search.
I'm not claiming that the amendment is not meaningful. I'm pointing out how the amendment's meaning is relevant to what happened. The original article makes it clear that the reciter didn't understand that relevance.
BTW I haven't written anything about the legitimacy of TSA searches so your presumptions along those lines are unfounded and insulting. And, before you presume to teach me something, learn the difference between recite and read. (Hint - she did the former, not the latter.)
You seemed to think that those "quibbles" were important when you thought that they supported your position, so surely they're just as important when they don't.
She misrepresented what she did.
BTW - Comparing what she did with King cheapens King.
> Suppose she had started reciting[1] the 10 commandments or jabberwocky? Would you have had the same reaction?
I suspect she would have gotten the same reaction, or something very near to it. When being herded through a TSA checkpoint, the last thing they want you doing is yelling.
Suppose she had started reciting[1] the 10 commandments or jabberwocky? Would you have had the same reaction?
If you go with "the US constitution is relevant" then she's got a problem. She claims that she didn't resist a search. That can only be true if she thinks that reciting US constitution clauses on search aren't relevant to the situation, namely a search.
So, which is it? Was reciting the US constitution her way of refusing a search or was it just words?
[1] She wasn't "reading" anything - she was reciting various parts of the US constitution from memory.