Supporting Star Simpson takes more than words

Instructables is selling shirts with the message, 'Improvising Electric Devices is not a Crime.' Some of the proceeds go to help fund Star Simpson's legal defense fund.

(Credit: Instructables)

When I heard that MIT student Star Simpson had been arrested at Boston's Logan airport for wearing an outfit that incorporated what police called a hoax bomb, but which was really nothing more than a piece of electronic art, I was outraged.

I know that times being what they are, law enforcement needs to take security threats seriously. No one will dispute that. But what we're seeing, again and again, as in the case of the two Boston men arrested for putting up devices that were part of a Cartoon Network marketing ploy, is that police, media and prosecutors have a very hard time seeing the forest for the trees in these situations.

In Simpson's case, for example, there is every bit of evidence--anecdotal, I'll admit, as I haven't seen any legal documents or even the actual outfit in question--that the shirt she was wearing when she went to the airport to pick up a friend was nothing at all like a bomb, was a shirt she wore all the time, and certainly wasn't worn with any intention of scaring anyone.

Yet, she faces serious charges, and therefore serious and escalating legal bills to defend herself against something which, it seems to me and to many, many people, should have just been written off to a misunderstanding.

That's where my wallet and that of others comes into play. Right now, points out BoingBoing, on the site Instructables, you can buy a shirt bearing the slogan, "Improvising Electric Devices is not a Crime," a reference to the device Simpson was wearing that caused her arrest. Some of the proceeds from sales of the shirt will go to her defense fund, so I bought one. And hopefully when people like myself wear the shirt around, it will raise awareness that maybe we all should be willing to take things a little less seriously around here.

This isn't to say that police shouldn't be free to stop someone they see whom they suspect might be a security risk. But they should also be willing to recognize it when that risk isn't there, and let someone like Star Simpson go. Because it seems clear to me that if her case goes to trial, she will prevail, but at significant financial cost to herself and to taxpayers. And what use is that?

[Dalkorian]

Daniel!

Daniel's article included this revelation:

"... as I haven't seen any legal documents or even the actual
outfit in question ..."

First off Daniel, you should look it up. It's not that hard and it
would give you at least an air of being a professional journalist.
Besides, what they threatened her life for is comical; I doubt if
Monty Python could have topped that one. Please, take a
moment to find an image of this "improvised electronic device".
I've seen poodles that were more threatening-looking!

When the comedy of the situation wears off and that eerie
feeling of "what have we become" starts to set in, ask why the
illegal bush regime is still in power. If you think about it for
more than a second, you'll realize the true terrorists that are the
enemies of this great nation of ours are residing in the White
House right now and for some reason we're doing nothing about
it. Why???

[miniz2]

ooookay

from what I understand,when someon asked her what the device was, she just turned and walked away...this whole thing may have been avoidable if she were like "oh! I'm stupid enough to wire electronics to my clothes and then go to an airport, where no one would find this suspicious!" I don't have any sympathy for her, an airport is not a place to display electronics on your clothes, let alone not explain what they are when asked.

[lkrupp]

What should have happened.

Star Simpson should have been shot dead. Only then would her
fellow idiots (like the author of this blog) get the message that you
don't pull stunts like this in an airport these days. Since she wasn't
blown away by the cops she should spend at least 10 years in jail
so she and her fellow idiots get the message. Apparently that's
what it will take for morons to take notice, a 2X4 between the eyes.

[lkrupp]

And while I'm at it.

If Star Simpson had in fact been a suicide bomber and the device
had been a real bomb, and if dozens of people had been killed,
the same frigtard who wrote this blog piece would be screaming
bloody murder about the incompetence of the authorities. He
would also be blaming the government for "causing" the
terrorists to act because of its (the government's) policies.

That's what useful idiots (and frigtards) do. Blame everyone but
the person doing the evil (or in this case, stupid) deed.

[jersey8797]

This is why blogs shouldn't be on sites that have credibility

There is no way we should be giving someone this uninformed a blog that lends him any sense of credibility. Daniel shows no concept of the real world.

She was wearing a device that included loose wires and was playing with clay in her hands. She calls this "art". The rest of the sane world calls this a potential bomb. If I were to carry a fake gun into the airport and called it "art" guess what would happen.

Walk into an airport. You know what you'll see? HUGE signs that say, "No jokes! All comments about bombs will be taken seriously." Did she lack this simple level of common sense to read the signs? Is Daniel willing to give her a pass because she wants to call this "art"? If I called a fake gun "art" and pointed it at a police officer I wouldn't have a chance to post this - I'd be dead.

I guess my question is this - if it was a real bomb that she simply excused as "art", and later blew something up, what would the reaction have been then? I'm guessing, "How could they let something this obvious in an airport?"

Dealing with security is not a time for Monday morning quarterbacking.

Well, aparently unless you have a blog on cNet, which will allow any yahoo to post whatever nonsensical thoughts are on their minds.

[josephdunphy]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, two blog posts on my own ...

One in which you get to see what Pare called a "a lump of clay". As you can see for yourself in a still from the Boingbong video I've embedded in the post, it was a ceramic flower. Pare biased any potential jury by lying to the press.

http://joseph-dunphy.blogspot.com/2008/11/star-simpsons-first-interview-on-boston.html

In this one, you can see some shots of the so-called "hoax device"

http://josephdunphy.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/a-little-reality-intruding-on-the-spin-the-star-simpson-incident/

Look at the pictures, and note the sources of them. This was outrageous.