There is an argument to be made, however, for the illegality of the intrusive scanners at airports. The TSA is a government agency working inside a private institution. It could be considered sufficiently intertwined with government so as to warrant a Fourth Amendment protection.

What, pray tell, does this digression have to do with your previous assertion that a “court may find that the misinformation spread by these films is harmful to a captive audience and therefore should not be shown”?

Where does it say in the Constitution that we have the “freedom on choice?” I must have missed that in my Constitutional Law class.

And finally; it could be argued that a person acting on misinformation is not acting freely. There are reasons why misinformation and misrepresentation are considered scientific misconduct when recruiting participants for experiments; one of those reasons being that people making the choice of participating based on misinformation and misrepresentation, are not making an educated decision and therefore are not making a free choice.

There is an argument to be made, however, for the illegality of the intrusive scanners at airports. The TSA is a government agency working inside a private institution. It could be considered sufficiently intertwined with government so as to warrant a Fourth Amendment protection.

All of this being said, laws are intended to be vague. They are written this way so that they can be interpreted in whatever way the judge(s) want them to be interpreted. This is no different with the Constitution. We learn this during the first year of law school. Law is all about stroking the fur of the judge(s) and jury(ies) in the right way so that they rule in your favor. All too often the judges will take this ambiguity and use it as an opportunity to push a certain political (usually conservative) agenda. Be wary of the legal system; it isn’t what most people think it is. This is not some conspiracy theory. Take a look at the hearsay rules in the Federal Rules of Evidence; in particular, Rules 801 – 807. The instruction for my Evidence final exam is, find a rule that gets the provided piece of evidence admitted for trial. My evidence professor has said that any piece of evidence, no matter if its hearsay or circumstantial, can be admitted by one of the rules in this section.

The federal government can regulate airlines through the Commerce Clause. A court may find that the misinformation spread by these films is harmful to a captive audience and therefore should not be shown.

Yah. I think an FAA version of the Fairness Doctrine, which is about the best one could hope for under this odd scenario, is a ways off.

The law is a lot more complicated than the average citizen thinks.

I’ll say.

Fifth Amendment too, probably.