![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
on the train
This morning I did the commuter rail commute from my new house in the suburbs for the first time. It should have been quite pleasant: I had a good book to read, the train was on time, relatively clean, I had no trouble getting a seat by the window to settle in and read.
But the awareness that the MBTA intends to continue doing randomized bag searches, even after the end of the DNC, was giving me quite a bit of anxiety. I find it offensive to have my things searched. When I fly, I brace myself to deal with it as just another in the whole string of hassles involved in getting on an airplane. I would find it far more of a shock to have a search sprung on me in the course of my daily commute. Then I happened to read the text of the Bill of Rights a few weeks ago, and re-discovered (having forgotten quite a bit of the actual text) that I'm not alone in finding random searches offensive-- I'm in the good company of the authors of the Bill of Rights. What the MBTA wants to do flies right in the face of the 4th amendment, its protection against "unreasonable search and seizure".
Once I knew this, I was resolved that I couldn't just let some busybody take my constitutional freedoms away from me. If they tried to search my bags, I would just have to say no. The Constitution, and the rule of law, are socially-constructed realities; if we act as though The Constitution doesn't exist, it then in effect ceases to exist. Oh, a piece of parchment with fine spidery handwriting still exists, but there are many written documents in the world, and most of them are fiction.
I've been trying to steel up my resolve as I stomp home from work every day, so that I don't lose my nerve and cave in if they ever try to search me. Imagining variations on this scenario, over and over again: some cop asks to search my bag; I say no; he says, so get off the train; I say no; they arrest me; I go on and on about the 4th amendment. I'm scared of getting arrested, of course, but I try to reassure myself about it, telling myself that the worse the experience is, the splashier the resulting PR and resulting lawsuit. If the MBTA is going to be a bunch of jerks and drag a petite 35-year-old pregnant computer geek off the train, I want the world to laugh and point. Um, at them, not at me.
Of course, all this has been putting me off of taking the T for weeks.
This morning the time came for me to face my fears. No, I didn't get arrested, I didn't have any negative interaction with any T employees, I didn't see anyone get searched nor did I see any unusual sign of security at all. The one sign that this issue hasn't just gone away was-- just a sign. At the commuter rail station, there's a small notice, informing us that we are subject to search, and if we don't like it we can take a flying leap. In much more officious language than that.
Oooo, it really burned me up to see that sign. Felt temptation to rip down that sign (and then be able to argue, I wasn't duely informed of this; sign? What sign?) but rejected that plan of action pretty quickly. I'd rather keep things simple, clear and straightforward by staying on the same side as the law. Grafetti-ing the sign would be emotionally satisfying for a moment, but not helpful in a practical way.
What would be really awesome, I realized, would be to have a rival sign put up, which simply quotes the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution as subversive political speech! Score!!!!!! But then I realized that putting up your own poster is as against the rules as tearing down one of the MBTA's posters. They will clean out and tear down any postering you try to do on MBTA property because... because...
Because they want to sell advertising! Of course! *light bulb* We CAN put the text of the 4th amendment up on the walls of the T, we just have to buy the advertising space through the normal channels. What a great idea, if I do say so myself. Simple, black-and-white ads which read, in their entirety:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-- United States Constitution
Nothing else. No graphics, no editorializing, no phone number or URL, just that. That way, anyone trying to reject the ad as "too political" will look pretty damn silly. That text, on its own, juxtaposed with the notices that the MBTA itself posts, ought to induce-- cognitive dissonance? Discussion? It would be very interesting to see.
And, if the MBTA says "no we won't take your ad", then we have a fantastic First Amendment case. Much more compelling than the question of whether NMBLA can run a website.
I want to do it. But I don't want to just buy the ads myself. I want to get a group together, have the moral support and sounding board of other people who give a damn about this meeting with me occasionally, have 503(c) tax status if possible, draw on other peoples' knowledge and experience, and have the credibility of these ads being bought by a group with a name, not just me being a looney. I'm thinking "The Fourth Amendment Freedoms Group" as the working name, but I am very, very open to suggestion of something snazzier. I am only interested at this point in pursuing this single issue through this particular forum, so if your interest is more generalized, you might want to look at the ACLU as a channel in which to pursue those interests.
I know that everyone fears a time commitment, but I'm only asking that you stand with me. Who's with me on this?
But the awareness that the MBTA intends to continue doing randomized bag searches, even after the end of the DNC, was giving me quite a bit of anxiety. I find it offensive to have my things searched. When I fly, I brace myself to deal with it as just another in the whole string of hassles involved in getting on an airplane. I would find it far more of a shock to have a search sprung on me in the course of my daily commute. Then I happened to read the text of the Bill of Rights a few weeks ago, and re-discovered (having forgotten quite a bit of the actual text) that I'm not alone in finding random searches offensive-- I'm in the good company of the authors of the Bill of Rights. What the MBTA wants to do flies right in the face of the 4th amendment, its protection against "unreasonable search and seizure".
Once I knew this, I was resolved that I couldn't just let some busybody take my constitutional freedoms away from me. If they tried to search my bags, I would just have to say no. The Constitution, and the rule of law, are socially-constructed realities; if we act as though The Constitution doesn't exist, it then in effect ceases to exist. Oh, a piece of parchment with fine spidery handwriting still exists, but there are many written documents in the world, and most of them are fiction.
I've been trying to steel up my resolve as I stomp home from work every day, so that I don't lose my nerve and cave in if they ever try to search me. Imagining variations on this scenario, over and over again: some cop asks to search my bag; I say no; he says, so get off the train; I say no; they arrest me; I go on and on about the 4th amendment. I'm scared of getting arrested, of course, but I try to reassure myself about it, telling myself that the worse the experience is, the splashier the resulting PR and resulting lawsuit. If the MBTA is going to be a bunch of jerks and drag a petite 35-year-old pregnant computer geek off the train, I want the world to laugh and point. Um, at them, not at me.
Of course, all this has been putting me off of taking the T for weeks.
This morning the time came for me to face my fears. No, I didn't get arrested, I didn't have any negative interaction with any T employees, I didn't see anyone get searched nor did I see any unusual sign of security at all. The one sign that this issue hasn't just gone away was-- just a sign. At the commuter rail station, there's a small notice, informing us that we are subject to search, and if we don't like it we can take a flying leap. In much more officious language than that.
Oooo, it really burned me up to see that sign. Felt temptation to rip down that sign (and then be able to argue, I wasn't duely informed of this; sign? What sign?) but rejected that plan of action pretty quickly. I'd rather keep things simple, clear and straightforward by staying on the same side as the law. Grafetti-ing the sign would be emotionally satisfying for a moment, but not helpful in a practical way.
What would be really awesome, I realized, would be to have a rival sign put up, which simply quotes the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution as subversive political speech! Score!!!!!! But then I realized that putting up your own poster is as against the rules as tearing down one of the MBTA's posters. They will clean out and tear down any postering you try to do on MBTA property because... because...
Because they want to sell advertising! Of course! *light bulb* We CAN put the text of the 4th amendment up on the walls of the T, we just have to buy the advertising space through the normal channels. What a great idea, if I do say so myself. Simple, black-and-white ads which read, in their entirety:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-- United States Constitution
Nothing else. No graphics, no editorializing, no phone number or URL, just that. That way, anyone trying to reject the ad as "too political" will look pretty damn silly. That text, on its own, juxtaposed with the notices that the MBTA itself posts, ought to induce-- cognitive dissonance? Discussion? It would be very interesting to see.
And, if the MBTA says "no we won't take your ad", then we have a fantastic First Amendment case. Much more compelling than the question of whether NMBLA can run a website.
I want to do it. But I don't want to just buy the ads myself. I want to get a group together, have the moral support and sounding board of other people who give a damn about this meeting with me occasionally, have 503(c) tax status if possible, draw on other peoples' knowledge and experience, and have the credibility of these ads being bought by a group with a name, not just me being a looney. I'm thinking "The Fourth Amendment Freedoms Group" as the working name, but I am very, very open to suggestion of something snazzier. I am only interested at this point in pursuing this single issue through this particular forum, so if your interest is more generalized, you might want to look at the ACLU as a channel in which to pursue those interests.
I know that everyone fears a time commitment, but I'm only asking that you stand with me. Who's with me on this?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I think it is a good idea, I think starting with the Metro and even the regular newspapers might be the best idea. I wonder how much a full page ad in the globe or herald costs? Or the Phoenix?
no subject
That's half the beauty of it... I'd LOVE to put them in the position of having to say publicly that they don't agree with a portion of the Constitution. I'm sure some lawyer whose interests include the First Amendment would be rubbing their hands with glee over the chance to grandstand on that one.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2004-08-02 12:52 pm (UTC)(link)When a passenger on the MBTA refuses to be searched, he or she is ejected from the system and banned from riding. Further access to the T by such a passenger is prosecuted as trespassing. The MBTA can only do this because they claim to be a private entity that can enforce their own internal rules as they see fit. After all, if they were a public entity, they would have a hard time ejecting law-abiding peaceful passengers merely for their refusal to consent to a search. Thus, the most effective way to get them to stop searching people is to take away their form of punishment by having them declared a public entity, or perhaps an entity upon which the public relies (much like the phone or electric companies) and make it so they CANNOT eject passengers for refusal to consent to a search. I'm not sure even this tack will work, but it will probably work better than advertisements.
I personally believe that as a private organization, the MBTA responds only to fiduciary pain. For this reason I am boycotting the MBTA until they rescind their search policy, and I encourage others to do the same. Hey, I'll run an ad in the Metro saying so!
--
Rich
Also...
(Anonymous) 2004-08-02 01:26 pm (UTC)(link)--
Rich
no subject
no subject