http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/27/nipple.ring.ap/index.html

No problem here.

If you wear something that raises suspicion, you have to remove it.

Just another money hungry person, looking for a reason to sue.

Or is it the TSA run amok.

Seems to me the sensible thing to do would've been for her to just show them to the female officer.

TSA -- Totally Stupid Animals..(you know, the 'professionals' we had to have the FEDERAL GOV'T pay for--ha,ha..)...

I bet she was white.

The article I read said she offered to show the female agent the piercings in private but the male agents insisted that the piercings be removed before boarding the flight.

I think this started as "she just wanted an apology" but I'm sure it may turn into money at some point.

Do people with ear stretchers have this problem also? besides the fact that they are visible.

I disagree. Sounds like TSA BS to me. No reason she could not show them to the female officer and go on about her business. Idiot TSA agents gonna cost (waste) taxpayers $$$ -- again.

Yep, utterly ridiculous. As far as I know, people aren't required to remove earrings before a flight, so why nipple rings (owie )?

Rules are in place for your protection.

A pat down was not offered. The TSA VIOLATED the rules and caused this woman injury.

It had better cost the agents their jobs and the agency enough money to get their attention and force them to make an effort to train their agents better. It's unfortunate that it takes a lawsuit to make that happen, but that's the way the system works these days.

hrm, to me, the situation could have been avoided, by removing the rings priot to arrival.

Same as rings on other body parts. (Where imo they should not be anyway.)

Those kind of piercings are not as easy to remove as earrings are. It's extremely painful to remove from what I read. I do not think she posed a security threat by having these. She offered to show them to the female agent. I understand this is a precautionary for the rest of us but where is the line drawn?

And you know this based on your vast personal experience with nipple piercings?

Not at all, I read it in the article.

Shouldn't we wait for the full TSA investigation before we start drawing such harsh conclusions?

No

from the article...


"Hamlin said she told the woman she was wearing nipple piercings. The agent then called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewelry, Hamlin said.

Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewelry was out, she said.

She was taken behind a curtain and managed to remove one bar-shaped piercing but had trouble with the second, a ring.

"Still crying, she informed the TSA officer that she could not remove it without the help of pliers, and the officer gave a pair to her," said Hamlin's attorney, Gloria Allred, reading from a letter she sent Thursday to the director of the TSA's Office of Civil Rights and Liberties. Allred is a well-known Los Angeles lawyer who often represents high-profile claims.

Applying pliers to the torso of a mannequin that had a peach-colored bra with the rings on it, Hamlin showed reporters at the news conference how she took off the second ring.

She said she heard male TSA agents snickering as she took out the ring. She was scanned again and was allowed to board even though she still was wearing a belly button ring."


Sounds like a bunch of pervs who were getting off on humiliating this woman! snickering at her while she had to use the pliers?? What freaking law covers snickering at passengers?? i hope they are sued and I hope she takes them to the cleaners!!!

And if this was a SECURITY risk why didnt she have to remove her belly button ring??

Just a really dumb question because it's been a while since I last flew anywhere. So these days they "wand" you even though you've passed through the whole-body detector without setting off any alarms?

In the past I know "wanding" was only for those who couldn't make it through the whole body scanner without setting it off. This woman was said to have been subjected to both.

No.

They wand based on some super-secret ratio.

It's been a few years for me. But the last time out, I got flagged in Omaha, 4 red "F"s on my ticket. Had to be pulled out of line for an up close and personal inspection. Not a strip search, but it might as well have been. My companion, was likewise flagged. TSA was polite, professional and discrete.

I'm sure you're being glib patton, but I'm not too sure that's too far from the truth. I did a little investigating when I got back home, with a Federal Air Marshall I had worked with. He basically alluded to the super secret ratio.

As most are, there are of course a few bad apples, as there are in everything.

Great. Most of the time they are polite and professional, thank goodness. But it just seems to be getting worse every time I go anywhere.

Last year I was glad my annual professional conference was close enough I could rent a car and drive instead of having to deal with flying. This year, no dice.

Eventually I think they'll just be asking us all to show up in our jammies to make the whole strip search process go more quickly. I'm hoping that at least before they get to the point of asking us to do a bowel prep prior to flying, I'll be able to retire.

LOL B, that's probably not too far off.

I've toyed around with going to the Virgin Islands or vicinity, but the whole hassle of air travel now, has made me decide against those plans.

It's just not worth the hassle. Plus with the shape that the Airlines are in, with cancellations and the like, if I can't drive there, I'm probably not going.

If you ever go to Turks and Caicos be prepared for a full strip search. Why, I don't know but it happens every time, three times for me. I've been to Mexico at least a dozen times and have never been hassled once.

Three times, sounds like you might be liking it.

They are legal and allowed. What is your problem? You turning into a pinko communist or something? You want to be the jewelry police? Shame on you!!!

*Raises hand* But... ummm... not in this case: she's just not hawt enuf!

That reminds me: whatever happened to Greedy?

No, not jewelry police. Just the morality police.

Certainly not commie, just a member of the moral majority (which thanks to the debauchery nowadays is becoming the minority).

He's around if you know what name to look under.

Rumor has it he became a ignorant stalker.

Thats what I heard.

Gee I am sorry I didn't realize you wanted to be Muslim. I recall all of those "enlightened" countries in the middle east have police charged with enforcing morality. Get over it (morality) no one has the right to tell anyone else what they can wear on their body when it is hidden by clothes. What a joke.

Indeed it is a joke, I thought you were conservative, apparently that was only when it was cool. I understand. You got yoru Obama Shirt yet?

I am conservative. Part of that means I am not in favor of government infringing on the rights of the individual. It is nobodies business telling someone else how to live their life or what to believe. That is something the democrats would do so I guess you are going to vote for Hillary?

I like McCain but I wish there was someone better running. As for Obama and Hillary what a joke I have never seen so many people fooled in my life as with those two clowns.

I think we should dig Ronald Reagan up even dead he is better than anything we have now or will have after the next election

Wow that was ignorant even by your standards. Not everyone who espouses morality - which is the basis for most laws in any nation - is a Muslim. Talk about not debating the issue, but instead just calling names. I think Patton is going overboard, but sheash! I wouldn't call him a Muslim!

By the way, just to educate you (perhaps a lost cause): as much as I agree, as a conservative, that we should minimize the number and complexity of laws and regulations, I must vehemently disagree that "it is nobodies business telling someone else how to live their life". We have all sorts of good laws that do just that and are necessary to preserve the peace and maintain a decent and productive society.

I dare say you are NOT Conservative: much of what I have seen from your quarter is Libertarian. Similar, but only on the surface. I myself have some libertarian tendencies, albeit few, and am aware of the difference.

B evidently you didn't read the posts in this thread very well. Patton referred to himself as the morality police. In this day and age the only nations and religions with morality police are Muslim. that is what I was referring to.

Libertrian that is funny. Hey sorry if you believe a government agency can tell you what to wear and I don't is being liberal. The woman had something that was not visible nor did it by addmission pose any threat and they could tell her to take it off? Govnerment needs to be less involved in our lives. The fact you and Patton believe that government should even be able to tell someone how to dress when it offends no one is sickening.

What if it was the other way around, what if the government told you and Patton you had to wear a piece of jewelry. Would you do it? Most likely you would be in hear screaming about they had no right. Well they had no right too humiliate this lady and cause her physical pain for something that is not wrong other than in certain peoples values.

Anyone espousing a "morality police" needs to get the hell out of America and go somewhere where they have that attitude. Let them see how well they like someone telling them what to wear, look at, read or think. Heck they even tell you when to pray. You really want morality police in this country?

I said Libertarian NOT liberal Dust off a dictionary if you don't know the word.

lib·er·tar·i·an (lĭb'ər-târ'ē-ən) n.
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

Some of the disagreements we have had in other threads than this one, as well as your statements in this one, tell me that your attitudes are far better characterized as libertarian than conservative.

Since you seem to be somewhat politically illiterate, or at least unaware of the differences, here's the definition of conservative:

con·serv·a·tive (kənˈsɜrvətɪv) adj.
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

I suspect you might like to eliminate certain existing and/or traditional government institutions and policies because they place limits on individual freedom. That places you solidly in the libertarian camp, rather than conservative.

P.S. YES I certainly DO want a certain degree of "morality police" in this country. For example, I definitely favor the laws that enforce the religious/moral mandates against murder and theft. I'm also in favor of those relating to various sexual perversions, though I know some here would like to allow certain ones that have traditionally been illegal while at the same time maintaining the traditional prohibitions on pedophilia and beastiality. As a conservative I oppose such changes, while most libertarians do not.

As you suggested I went out and researched Libertarian. I stand corrected and yes I do agree with them on a lot of things, just as I agree with the Republicans on something’s and Democrats on others. I don't have a problem with moral laws and things that you suggested. I do have a problem with morality police doing what Patton suggested, telling someone what they can wear under their clothing and harming no one. If we were to get that type of morality police whose morality would they follow?

Would they tell all women they are subservient to men as is dictated by some religions? What if they insist men wear white shirts and black pants, women long dresses and not cut their hair? Would the morality police require everyone go to church every time the door is open?

Where do you draw the line? Where do you finally stop? Patton advocated and you evidently agreed that it is immoral for someone to pierce their body even though it doesn't affect you. Should these people be jailed? Beaten? Executed?

These are important questions because once you get "morality police" everyone loses. Remember everyone praised the Taliban for their morality and enforcement of morality. Look how that turned out.

The answer to that question is fodder for endless debate. In fact we're not talking about an all-or-nothing proposition, so I suspect the best we can ever do is get a sense of the majority opinion, since everyone is going to draw the line in a slightly different place on each issue you can think of. One person's idea of a sensible law is sometimes another person's "morality police".

As for THIS discussion, you evidently missed the part where I in fact DISAGREED with Patton. I think this was egregious misconduct on the part of the TSA agents. While I might not personally choose to pierce any parts of my body, that doesn't mean I have any issues with this woman's choice at all.

I only took issue with you when I thought you were going overboard accusing Patton of playing jewelry policeman and then when he took your ridiculous bait, calling him a Muslim. He simply said she should have removed them prior to coming to the airport. Just as I avoid wearing my steel-toed work shoes when I am taking a flight, had she known they would be a problem she could and some would say should have removed them in the privacy of her own home first. That's not playing "jewelry police"- it's a common-sense suggestion, especially in these times when you know they've got the metal detectors cranked up to maximum sensitivity.

I don't see Patton actually saying the words "nipple piercings are immoral" anywhere in there. I see you attacking him and him jerking your chain. Quite effectively, at that.

Folks let's do this step - by - step.

Go to my profile.

Look at interests.

Repeat after me: PLAYING Devils advocate.

Any questions.



Some of you are way to easy.

Who didn't see that coming?

Patton -- please, enough devil's advocate playing around. We're contentious enough around here w/o having to guess motives!

Darn, Snoopy laid the smack down on me.

I guess I will TRY to behave.

Well, that's something!

Well something had to be wrong because the FTA has now changed the rule to allow visual inspections. I think they were following the rules but were also being jacka$$e$ about it and intentionally tried to humiliate this woman. Shame on them! Government employees getting their jollies. I'm shocked Osama Bin Laden didn't walk by carrying a pound of C4 and get on a plane while they were busy getting their rocks off

Horrors! They couldn't stop Osama -- that'd be racial profiling!

We gotta get our jollies SOMEWHERE!!!!!

Can I see YOUR nipples?

Can we see yours?

<runs>

Sure, which of the three were you interested in?

Aww, man! You're no fun!