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.

[Flash Bazbeaux]

Classic case of yelling “Movie” in a crowded firehouse. NOT protected speech.

[6SJ7]

A computer science student who unwittingly created an airport bomb scare by wearing a blinking circuit board attached to her shirt...

Unwittingly? More like nitwittingly.

[3AngelaD]

Fire...crowded theater...Book ‘em, Danno.

[lormand]

Someone should blind fold her in a chair, and pretend to shoot her in the head with a hand gun just to let her see how people react when they think something is real, versus fake.

[rockabyebaby]

What a crock ‘o crap, it would do this twit some good if she were to do some time, maybe a few weeks to a month in jail, see how fast this type of crap would stop.

[Dilbert San Diego]

She’s probably a very smart girl, as she’s going to MIT. But, for all her alleged intelligence, she has no common sense. Definitely liberal in her leanings; she’s engaging in self-expression, people need to be tolerant of her and any stupid thing she decides to do, just because...........

[rockabyebaby]

"People make these objects part of their identity. It's a part of their personal expression," he said

Soooooooo, why doesn't she have it on in the picture, why didn't she wear it to court, afterall, it is part of her identity.

[coconutt2000]

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

She did not in fact explicitly or implicitly indicate that the device incorporated into her outfit was a bomb. By the description, it doesn’t even sound like it even looks like a bomb.

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

[Hunble]

When the other people beat the crap out of him, is that not also their form of free speech?

[theDentist]

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.

If she decided to "express herself in that manner", then it was not an "unwitting" action. Which is it counselor? Is she a Fool or a Jacka$$?

[Dilbert San Diego]

I like this idea. This would drive home the message that you can’t just do whatever the heck you want, whereever you want, and everyone has to just be understanding of your aberrant behavior.

[bvw]

This was not a bomb, not even a fake bomb. It was a fun gadget made by someone who ACTUALLY KNOWS HOW DO SOMETHING WITH ELECTRONICS. I know that is VERY SCARY to many -- at least so it appears to be because of the hysterical idiotic over-reaction. Not even chicken little was as fabulously ignorant and willing to be frightened.

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

Great. Chase all the people who actually know how to do things out of business, or into other countries.

[DBrow]

It was not a fake bomb. What a misleading title.

She did, though, have some stuff (the protoboard with bare wires and LEDs, and some play-doh) and she did not act in a reassuring way (she did not say, when asked, “Oh, I made this at MIT and I’m gonna show my boyfriend, isn’t it cooool?”, she walked quickly away). She scared people by what she had and how she acted.

In that light, FALSELY crying “fire” comes to mind.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Classic case of yelling “Movie” in a crowded firehouse. NOT protected speech.

Maybe, maybe not. I'd have to see this "wearable" circuit board. My first reaction was that she was a complete idiot. Then I heard that the circuit board's lights spelled out her name, which only an idiot would find threatening. Now I hear the defense is "free speech" which is also idiotic. Show me the damn board, and then I can decide whether the idiot is her or the security people.

The "realism" of the threat matters. If someone shows up at the airport with a realistic lookalike plastic weapon, he's going to be taken down. How about if its a kid with an obvious, transparent flourescent water pistol?

For all the press on this, why haven't they just shown a pic of the "item" that caused the problems so reasonable people could make up their own minds about what happened?

[jazusamo]

While she’s got to be a very bright young lady going to MIT, she’s certainly lacking in the common sense category.

[PureSolace]

I remember when this happened. She’s a geeky MIT student or something. It was not a bomb, it was a shirt she made for some silly geek reason with little electronic LEDs flashing on her shirt or some silly thing like that. It obviously wasn’t a bomb. This is another case of the gov’t going too far with airport searches, and scaredy-cat tactics. I’m tired of taking off my shoes at airports. I want to bring my Gatorade on board dammit! We’re United States citizens! The best in the world!

We used to be better than this. Throw the case out, along with all the other stupid things the sheep in this country are scared of. Where are the real men and women? What happened to America?

Our freedoms are slipping away.

[Doe Eyes]

(Fake suicide bomb vest at airport = free speech)

Are you kidding?

What she was wearing:

"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."

[driftdiver]

Let her wear it, but shoot her next time. While you’re at it shoot her lawyer too.

After all everyone knows that suicide bombers are not a problem. Its really the people who have prejudices against the suicide bombers that cause all the dead people.

[lormand]

"Our freedoms are slipping away."

So is our ability to survive based on your statements.

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

[Doe Eyes]

Remember the other Boston bomb scare?

[theDentist]

It was a fun gadget made by someone who ACTUALLY KNOWS HOW DO SOMETHING WITH ELECTRONICS.

SO people who don't know what they're doing can make bomb vests, and people who actually know what they're doing make "fun gadgets". Gee, goos thing someonw who knows what they're doing doesn't decide to apply explosives to the "fun gadget", or else the Police ow other would never know at a glance.

Look, wearing a "fun gadget" to the park or at a frat party is one thing, but wearing it into an airport is another.

[lormand]

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

Being a EE, and knowing gobs of rational and intelligent EE's, please don't associate yourself with us.

[gridlock]

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

[righttackle44]

Amazing that American people don’t have the right to
defend themselves from wackos who MIGHT really be terrorists, like this woman.

By the way, BVW, hate your automobiles!

[RBroadfoot]

Obviously you aren’t paying attention to the folks bashing her on this site and elsewhere.

The woman was wearing a gizmo that upset other people who didn’t know what it was. The sheeple don’t wear gizmos like she did. Obviously she needs to be locked up.

[KarlInOhio]

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 first amendment defense is more often used when some troublemaker gets called on something. I think a better defense would have been to release photos of the shirt and publicly ridicule the jumpy TSA agents. Ridicule is often the best defense against the stupid.

Also, I would like to get a look at this alleged "bomb".

[Doe Eyes]

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

I put this prosecution in the same category as the school expelling a student for having a butter knife in their lunch pail.

[gridlock]

This shirt has an animated graphic equalizer display.

[Kirkwood]

Not at all clear to someone looking at this what might be under the shirt. It does look like a timing device at first glance.

[Doe Eyes]

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Anyone who thinks that an actual bomb would have flashing lights all over it has watched one too many cliché-ridden Hollywood action flick.

If wearing a shirt with flashing LEDs is all it takes to get arrested in an airport, the prisons are going to be jam packed soon.

[MindBender26]

Shouting “Rich Chinaman” at at DNC meeting.

[Ramius]

No, it wasn’t a bomb, and I don’t think she was trying to make something that looked like a bomb.

But you have to admit that deciding to wear a shirt with a homemade device on it with a circuit board and blinky-lights and wires and putty... when you are going to the ~airport~ is a pretty stupid thing to do.

You don’t have to be a rocket surgeon to realize it might attract a lot of attention, in a place where attacting attention is rarely fun. Then, when the obvious attention does happen what does she do? Does she get smart and say “don’t worry, it’s just some lights, here let me show you...”??

Nope... SHE throws a fit, gets confrontational and further alarms the security dudes.

She may go to MIT, but she’s still a complete idiot.

[Tribune7]

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

Probably, and I have no problem cutting her a break, but a First Amendment defense is lame and hopefully the judge doesn't buy it.

[bvw]

Your reaction speaks for itself of you.

[lormand]

"Your reaction speaks for itself of you."

Absolutely, but not in a way you think it is.

[Doe Eyes]

But you have to admit that deciding to wear a shirt with a homemade device on it with a circuit board and blinky-lights and wires and putty... when you are going to the ~airport~ is a pretty stupid thing to do.

Does this merit prosecution?

If she were suing for false arrest, I would not support her at all. But is really something we need to jail people for?

[bvw]

The woman was a happy student who enjoyed her labs and learning, and applied towards friendship. She is also pretty and has a nice smile.

For some reason that seems to have decoded to "whacko terrorist" on the decoder ring you pulled from the cereal box. Try a different breakfast next time. May I suggest cold pizza?

[KarlInOhio]

That's some ugly wiring. By the Free Republic guilt/innocence criterion I declare that circuit to be GUILTY!

If you wear something like that to an airport you should expect to at least get hassled and maybe even taken away for a little one-on-one time with the TSA. I get worried when I have to bring some hand wired prototypes through the airport before we get full circuit boards made.

[bvw]

Not only do you think you speak for many and all EEs, but you also think you read my mind. Quite the amazement!

[lormand]

"Not only do you think you speak for many and all EEs, but you also think you read my mind. Quite the amazement!"

All respectful and able EE's out here have already built their own ESP devices. Get on board man!

[Ramius]

Does this merit prosecution?

Perhaps not. But I don't think she's really be prosecuted for merely having the device itself. It was her actions at the airport that were the problem. I think. Could be wrong. Don't really care either way.

I see a snotty little arrogant twerp that thinks the whole world is about her, and nobody else matters. If I went to the airport and went out of my way to pick a fight with the security dudes, I suppose I'd be arrested and charged with something too. Don'cha think?

[Doe Eyes]

I get worried when I have to bring some hand wired prototypes through the airport before we get full circuit boards made.

Do you consider yourself a criminal?

[Doe Eyes]

If I went to the airport and went out of my way to pick a fight with the security dudes, I suppose I'd be arrested and charged with something too. Don'cha think?

I would agree if she was charged with interfering with security dudes.

She is charged with possessing a hoax device. I don't think her intent was to make people believe she had a bomb.

[Doe Eyes]

If I went to the airport and went out of my way to pick a fight with the security dudes, I suppose I'd be arrested and charged with something too. Don'cha think?

I would agree if she was charged with interfering with security dudes.

She is charged with possessing a hoax device. I don't think her intent was to make people believe she had a bomb.

[bvw]

I’d rather not pull my Alpha-Male-Alpha-Wave-Magnifier out of the box in the attic.

[Ramius]

Then she may well beat the charge, I expect. Sounds like she was charged with the wrong thing.

It doesn’t make her any smarter. :-)

[lormand]

Surely you must share such a device as dictated in section 83 on page 835 of the IEEE members’s manual.

[Desron13]

A guy once suggested to me that a good way to get out of jury duty would be to show up wearing a full Star Trek Federation uniform complete with tricorder and phaser but I’m guessing the flashing LED thing would work pretty well to.