There’s a fine line between proving a point and going too far. For John Brennan, who stripped at a routine TSA screening to protest their lack of respect for people’s privacy, it was an easy line to cross. He is now awaiting trial for public indecency.
There’s a fine line between proving a point and going too far. For John Brennan, who stripped at a routine TSA screening to protest their lack of respect for people’s privacy, it was an easy line to cross. He is now awaiting trial for public indecency.
Most people would agree with what he was trying to say; the Transportation Security Administration displays little regard for people’s privacy, and at times screeners can feel like childhood bullies holding their power over their peers. Nevertheless, Brennan’s method of protest was poorly thought-out. And very nearly bullying itself, for that matter.
Regardless of the verdict at this trial, Brennan’s actions are unlikely to spark any changes in the TSA. All we can hope is that copycats do not see his “protest” as an appropriate one of their own.
The TSA is annoying. Everyone gets that. Flying is stressful enough without waiting in line with 200 other irritable people waiting to take off their shoes and belts and crossing their fingers that nobody pats them down. This is particularly so when TSA agents are grumpy themselves, barking out orders and glaring at everyone whose shoes take more than 10 seconds to take off.
Brennan, who routinely flies for business, clearly knew this when he arrived at the airport. When he was selected for a secondary screening after going through the metal detector, he decided he’d had enough.
Rather than Hulk out or scream and whine or destroy public property (like some Seattle protesters recently in the news), he chose a quiet, almost comical way to protest. Calmly, in front of hundreds of people, he removed his clothing and stood before the agents completely nude.
When he refused to put his clothes back on, Portland police stepped in, slapping him with disorderly conduct and public indecency charges. The disorderly conduct charge was dropped shortly thereafter, leaving him with a misdemeanor public indecency charge.
Brennan was offered the option of completing some community service and writing a letter of apology. He rejected this, insisting on going to trial instead. In an interview with KOIN News, Brennan stated that he felt he was the wronged party at the airport.
“My reaction was, ‘This is absurd. I’m a business traveler. I’m part of the public that pays these people’s salary, and I don’t need to be harassed,’” Brennan told KOIN. Nevertheless, he admitted that what he did after they pulled him aside may have crossed a line. “I feel like I am a reasonable man and my privacy was violated, and I hope the courts are reasonable.”
As it stands, it seems highly unlikely that Brennan will face serious consequences for his actions, which is just as well. He said that several lawyers had offered to represent him pro bono, so it’s fairly safe to assume he won’t have to deal with excessive legal fees. Even if he’s convicted, indecent exposure is a misdemeanor.
The only question, really, is why he elected to disrobe instead of vocally protest the screening. Besides, it’s not as though the TSA isn’t constantly hanging itself. It seems like not a month goes by without a story coming out about how they forced an incontinent old lady to remove her diaper or performed a pat down on a disabled four year old.
Each incident tightens the noose that much more. Making the TSA seem like the victims for once—as this case seems to do—does the exact opposite. It makes them seem like the poor folks just trying to do their jobs while a man makes an inappropriate scene.
Not to mention Brennan’s comments to KOIN News. By stating that he “paid their salaries” and shouldn’t have to put up with them screening him, he only served to make himself look like an entitled jerk looking for special privileges simply because he pays taxes.
Yes, he pays taxes. Yes, the TSA is paid for by taxes. It still doesn’t give you the right to make them—and everyone else at the airport—uncomfortable and shut down two lanes of security.
And then there’s the fact that while Brennan is clearly comfortable with his own body (he said so himself to KOIN News), not everyone wants to find themselves faced with someone else’s genitals on their way to visit Grandma. I, for example, would not be comfortable with someone else’s nudity when I’m already stressed from travel.
What it boils down to is essentially this: Brennan’s point was valid. His protest and articulation of said point, however, was inappropriate. He’ll have his day in court, and I’m sure he’ll be well-represented. However, future travelers aggravated about TSA screenings should not attempt the same sort of protest Brennan did, both for their own sakes and the comfort of others.
After all, the line between proving a point and going too far is easy to miss. Let’s hope this case helps it become a little clearer.
