I apologize for the brevity of this diary, but I saw this point expressed in a few corners of the Internet, and I believe it deserves a little more circulation:
If you think it is justifiable to arrest someone whose electronics project looks too much like a "movie bomb," do you also think we should arrest someone for looking too much like a "movie terrorist?"
That is, given someone who is completely innocent and law-abiding and who has made no effort to hoax or scare people---where the whole basis for arrest is that people might be inadvertently frightened because they're reminded of stuff they've seen on TV shows like 24. Where the whole basis of arrest is whether your homework reminds laypeople too much of a fictional representation of a bomb on TV shows.
If it is OK to arrest someone in that situation, how is it any different from arresting someone from physically resembling a fictional representation of a terrorist on those same TV shows? Doesn't that follow from the same logic, and the same flimsy standard of evidence?
I note that in the movie Falling Down, a popular favorite in conservative circles, the eternally persecuted protagonist has lost custody of his kids because he seemed like he might be violent, even though he hadn't done anything violent. This was presented in the movie as a huge injustice, persecution of an innocent man because someone felt that he seemed like a child abuser. And yet this is the standard conservatives want to apply to this kid: that we should arrest someone for making us vaguely nervous, knowing perfectly well that they haven't done anything.