Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

You Can't See Our Stinking Law

Jacob Sullum | 1.8.2007 12:48 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear John Gilmore's appeal of a 9th Circuit decision rejecting his demand to be shown the text of the regulation that is said to require air travelers to show ID. Background to the case is here; Brian Doherty delved into it for Reason in a 2003 cover story.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Drug Policy Alliance's Ethan Nadelmann on The Colbert Report

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason. He is the author, most recently, of Beyond Control: Drug Prohibition, Gun Regulation, and the Search for Sensible Alternatives (Prometheus Books, September 2).

PoliticsPolicyCivil LibertiesWorldTerrorismAirlinesAirports
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (19)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. crimethink   19 years ago

    The justices, without comment, let stand an appeals court ruling against Libertarian activist and millionaire John Gilmore.

    Actually, they did comment, but no one is allowed to read it.

  2. Timothy   19 years ago

    Fuck those guys.

  3. scape   19 years ago

    without comment

    The justices must be high-fiving each other and having a big ass laugh over that.

  4. crimethink   19 years ago

    Hmmm... maybe I should tell the IRS that I have prepared a tax return, but I'm not going to let them see it.

  5. Franklin Harris   19 years ago

    Franz Kafka, you have a call at the white courtesy phone. Paging Mr. Kafka....

  6. Pro Libertate   19 years ago

    --COMMENT REDACTED--

  7. James Anderson Merritt   19 years ago

    US Constitution, Amendment VI:

    "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."

    It would certainly seem to me that due process (guaranteed by Amendment V) would include showing the accused the text of the law or regulation under which he is being charged. At very least, the charges should cite the relevant provision, which should be available to the defendant and his counsel for review. That is just the common sense of a free society.

    If the authorities can't or won't produce the law, the defendant should walk. Period.

  8. James Anderson Merritt   19 years ago

    Reading more about the case, I see that the relevant incident never rose to the level of criminal prosecution -- nor, I imagine, could it, unless Gilmore flashed were to flash fake ID or contrive to get onto an airliner under similarly false pretenses.

    It's a sad day when our government forces people to break the law, just to get a chance to see it, much less challenge it in court. But from what I am seeing of the background of this case, such affirmative civil disobedience may very well be necessary. Too bad for everyone involved.

  9. Eric the .5b   19 years ago

    This makes my head ache just a bit.

  10. Nick   19 years ago

    Does anyone else think that this sounds like the plot from a really bad Monty Python sketch?

  11. JohnD   19 years ago

    Actually, some of the reader comments sound about as ridiculous as the subject to me.

    Bunch of idiots.

  12. Dinsdale Piranha   19 years ago

    Oy, Nick! `E broke the unwritten law!

  13. Daniel K.   19 years ago

    My own opinion of this will remain sealed, lest I break a sealed law regarding public expression about it.

  14. Syd   19 years ago

    But, but, but--This is a 9TH CIRCUIT decision. What is the Supreme Court thinking!

  15. dead_elvis   19 years ago

    I guess I broke the law last week. I checked in on-line, no baggage to check, and never at any point was I asked to show any I.D.

    I feel like such a rebel. Breakin' the Law!

    (cue Judas Priest)

  16. Warren   19 years ago

    dead_elvis,
    What airport?

  17. JohnCjackson III   19 years ago

    I always check in online, and I never check baggage ( I either don't carry it or I UPS it to my destination). Yet, they always ask for ID to get past the metal detector.

  18. Larry A   19 years ago

    I always have to show ID a couple of times. But then I'm usually checking a gun in my luggage.

    What was the point of quoting the Constitution? It's not like the government has to follow it or anything.

  19. Paul   19 years ago

    The law is an idiot, an ass.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Is Trump's D.C. Policing Doing Anything?

Liz Wolfe | 8.14.2025 9:32 AM

Was the Bill of Rights a Bad Idea? Some Founding Fathers Thought So.

Damon Root | 8.14.2025 7:00 AM

The U.K.'s Roundabouts Free Drivers From the Tyranny of Traffic Lights

Joe Lancaster | From the August/September 2025 issue

Brickbat: Body Shaming

Charles Oliver | 8.14.2025 4:00 AM

Trump Says 'People Are Feeling Safer Already,' but Federal Troops Won't Fix D.C.'s Crime

Robby Soave | 8.13.2025 5:10 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!