Fake Bomb Defendant Cites 1st Amendment (Fake suicide bomb vest at airport = free speech?)

Google | AP ^ | 2/1/08 | Denise Lavoie

[LibWhacker]

IMAGE: Star Simpson, right,19, of Lahaina, Hawaii, talks to her attorney, Thomas Dwyer, outside East Boston District Court, Friday, Feb. 1, 2008. Simpson was arrested by state troopers after she set off an airport bomb scare wearing a computer circuit board and wiring on her sweatshirt when she went to the airport to pick up her boyfriend last September. Simpson's attorney asked a judge to throw out the charges, saying the device was a legitimate form of free speech. (AP Photo/Bizuayehu Tesfaye)

BOSTON (AP) — A computer science student who unwittingly created an airport bomb scare by wearing a blinking circuit board attached to her shirt had a First Amendment right to express herself in that manner, her lawyer argued Friday.

Attorney Thomas Dwyer Jr. asked a judge to throw out the charge against Star Simpson, 19, who is accused of possessing a hoax device. East Boston District Court Judge Paul Mahoney took the motion to dismiss under advisement and said he would issue a ruling March 21.

Simpson, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology student from Lahaina, Hawaii, had gone to Logan International Airport last September to pick up her boyfriend.

She was held at gunpoint and arrested by state troopers after an alarm was raised over the battery-powered device on her shirt, which had flashing lights and the words "Socket to me" and "Course VI" (a major at MIT) written on the back.

Dwyer said his client, who is studying electrical engineering and computer science, didn't think her shirt would scare anyone. He said she had worn it on campus without alarming anyone.

"People make these objects part of their identity. It's a part of their personal expression," he said. "They are legitimate forms of First Amendment expression."

Dwyer also argued that state law does not clearly define what a hoax device is. The charge carries a penalty of up to 2 1/2 years and a $5,000 fine.

Assistant District Attorney Stephen Kerr said that police officers who arrested Simpson determined that a reasonable person would think Simpson was wearing an infernal device, which includes bombs and other explosives.

The terminal was not evacuated and flights were not affected. But authorities expressed amazement that someone would wear the device to the airport where two of the jets hijacked in the Sept. 11 attacks took off.

Her lawyer said she disconnected the battery to the flashing lights after somebody at the airport told her she shouldn't be wearing something like that.

Simpson, dressed in a long skirt and short-sleeved shirt, did not say anything during the court hearing.

Boston had been the focus of another bizarre security scare earlier last year when dozens of battery-powered devices were discovered around the city. They turned out to be a promotion for the Cartoon Network. Prosecutors dropped charges against two men after they apologized and performed community service.

[HardStarboard]

>>>If she’s guilty of anything, it is poor fashion sense.<<<

Ahhhh...check your coconut, I think it's cracked.

[HardStarboard]

>>>>Boston had been the focus of another bizarre security scare earlier last year<<<

Yeah. and then there was the "security scare" at Logan airport back in.....ahhh....2001, I think it was, September maybe.... when a guy named Atta and some of his friends flew out of there....

[lormand]

"My mistake. I thought you really were an EE."

No, thinking is your mistake.

[HardStarboard]

>>>Intent is key. I would wager that she did not intend to cause a problem.<<<

Neither did the guy that went through the TSA airport checkpoint with a loaded 9mm.

Hopefully your comment was intended to highlight your sense of humor.

[GeneralisimoFranciscoFranco]

Uh, I have a question....

Uh, yer honer, uh, I'm an uh, ex-Marine,(infuntri, we does the real fightin', yer honer) and I uh, saw the bomb board on the young ladies chest and it wuz just reactions yer honer sir, uh, I would never just throat-chop somebody ifin' I didn't think it was a life and death matter warrantin' the use of deadly force, sir.

Uh, kin I go now, sir?

[Doe Eyes]

No, thinking is your mistake.

I mean you no offense. A lot of people make false claims about their occupation or education on-line. Its really no big deal.

Hint, if you want to impress the chicks, I suggest Airline Pilot instead of Engineer.

[LibWhacker]

Yes, son. You’re free to go. Good job.

[gridlock]

Neither did the guy that went through the TSA airport checkpoint with a loaded 9mm.

Well, there are a few differences there, right.

The guy carrying a load gun was carrying a loaded gun. Carrying a loaded gun is prohibited in airports.

This young lady was wearing a T-Shirt, which can't hurt anyone, and is not prohibited anywhere.

[coconutt2000]

A computer science student who unwittingly created an airport bomb scare by wearing a blinking circuit board attached to her shirt had a First Amendment right to express herself in that manner, her lawyer argued Friday.

The "scare" was unintentional. She was wearing the geek's version of "flair" and clothing decoration. She has bad fashion sense, and that's about all there is to this story. It wasn't under her shirt, it wasn't a vest adorned with capsules and cylinders with wires protruding, nor was there a large clock-like device doing a good imitation of a count down. In fact, this wasn't even an attempt to make a statement other than a fashion statement that equates to, "Look at me! I'm a geek."

Forgive me if I think this whole thing was blown way out of proportion by idiots.

[ReignOfError]

She wore a blinking shirt. Worth a fine and community service, at most. It’s not a “hoax device” if she didn’t intend to perpetrate a hoax.

Wearing it to the airport was ill-considered, but she’s an MIT student. Pretty much a geek by definition.

[LibKill]

The young 'lady' is a smart-ass. She thought it would be fun to wear a circuit board with flashing lights in an airport.

Back in the day, before circuit boards she probably would have screamed "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

A very appropriate sentence would be for her to stand on a street corner in downtown Boston, wearing nothing but her circuit board, in winter, for a month.

[Popman]

Sounds more like an overreaction by authorities at the airport, and poor choice on her part.

Not hardly.

I followed this story quite closely when it happened.

I'm shocked she didn't get herself shot.

[ReignOfError]

The atrocity of converting “freedom of speech” to “freedom of expression” as in the fraudulent flag burning cases, has spawned just this kind of bastard progeny.

A agree with you in this specific case, but disagree in the more general sense. Prohibiting an action might be legitimate; prohibiting an action based on its symbolic content impinges on the first amendment.

It's legitimate to prohibit setting fires, but not to prohibit burning the US flag while allowing the burning of other flags; legitimate to restrict the time, place, and manner of speech, but not its content.

In the case at hand, the young woman wore a shirt with a circuit board and wires to the airport. That certainly was unwise. But do we really want to hang her for being a dork? Or for having a boyfriend who's a dork, and who would find that charming?

I vote for a firm rap on the knuckles, and then leave her be. One day, she'll invent something we will find useful.

The idea of “symbolic speech” is an epistemoligical obscenity

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. < /inigo >

At most, it's a semantic obscenity. I don't see how epistemology enters into it.

[Mr. Jeeves]

So is our ability to survive based on your statements.

It is clear that our enemies are 100 times smarter than your average libertarian.

Ernst Röhm couldn't have said it better.

[coconutt2000]

I'm shocked she didn't get herself shot.

Of all the stupid things to die for. Saw a picture of the t-shirt. Talk about an ugly shirt.

But only an idiot would mistake it for a "bomb."

[zeugma]

To all the folks exptessing knee-jerk support of the morons who arrested this young lady for wearing an electronically enhanced shirt, I'd like to ask if the following products available at ThinkGeek.com should also be illegal.

This is a shirt that displays ambient sound graphically in real time.

Here's one that shows the signal strength of any local Wi-Fi transmissions.

Sometimes I'm amazed at how eager people are to give power government agents. I used to be surprised by it much more often than I am these days though.    The word "freedom" apparently is not in most people's vocabulary.

[zeugma]

So many electronics-ignorant and EE-ignorant lemmings are so hyper-scared!

Astounding isn't it? 

[zeugma]

But only an idiot would mistake it for a "bomb."

There is apparently a higher proportion of idiots around airports than most places. Perhaps they are attracted by the pretty lights. 

[Popman]

But only an idiot would mistake it for a "bomb."

The reason why I say she almost got herself shot was her attitude about what she was wearing. She gave the officers a difficult time about questioning her.

Also I hardly think it was idiotic to immediately suspect her of "something" after all she was wearing a circuit board withing blinking lights, wires and some plastic puddy on it

That type of stunt you can pull off on campus, the local watering hole, the gaming room, pizza joint but a international airport? Think not.

BTW, remember the pizza guy with a bomb wrapped around his neck. Weird things sometimes happens.

[Republican Wildcat]

I think people aren’t reading the article before commenting...if it were the case she wore something with the intent of it looking like a fake bomb she would indeed deserve serious prosecution...but that’s apparently not what it was meant to be - she should just be given a warning not to wear things like that in an airport as it could create a false impression and just be sent on her way, assuming the information in this article is correct.