Ok, so what law did she break? I wan't aware of a law conserning what I can and can not wear at or 'near' an airport. What you are ass-u-me-ing is that she would have some reason to belive that she was wearing what could be deamed as a 'bomb'. To me she was wearing a sweatshirt with a breadbord, lights and wires. Everyday common items to me and since she is an MIT EE student her as well. She probally bought the Shirt on campus and wears it there on a reagular basis and no one accuses her of wearing a 'bomb'. So would that re-inforce that the social norm was that the shirt was ok? Yes. Would that lead her to believe that a reasonable person would think her shirt is a bomb? I think not. How was she 'threating'? She asked if a plane was there yet and walked away. What past experiance would lead her to belive that her sweatshirt was threating? I really don't think, basied on what I have read so far that what she did was acting in a patently unreasonable manor.
In fact given the above supposition she could have been action in a compleately reasonable mannor.
I can't tell you what the law is in Mass., but I can tell you that for most disorderly conduct laws, the focus is not on whether the defendant was doing what is normal for him/her.
For instance, if it were, I could walk through a mall nekked and then claim it was normal for me to do so because maybe I'm a nudist. Or I could light a fire in the middle of Rt. 1 after Maryland won the basketball championship and claim it was normal for me to want to celebrate.
Instead, the focus is on whether you disturbed the "peace," meaning public order. The question isn't whether it is reasonable to you to be doing what you're doing. Rather, the question is whether what you are doing, regardless of what it is, is disturbing public order. Running into an airport with something that could *reasonably* be mistaken for a bomb is certainly disturbing public order.
Mental states for these crimes differ. In some places, you might have to do it with the intent to disturb the public. In some places, you might have to do it while knowing that it would disturb the public, but without actually meaning to disturb the public (that's somewhat rare, because if you know it will, you usually intend to do it also). In some places, you might have to act recklessly - meaning that you're aware of the substantial chance of public disturbance, but do it anyway. In some places, you might have to act negligently - meaning that even if you don't know any of the above, you ought to. And finally, in some places, there is no "mental state" - it is enough to support a conviction that you did disturb public order, and it is irrelevant if you meant to or not (called "strict liability," kind of like a DUI - regardless if you meant to do it, you did do it).
[edit:] These mental states are best explained with this example. I have a gun and am shooting. I point it at a guy's head and pull the trigger, and I mean to kill him - that's
intentional. I point it at a guy's head and pull the trigger, but I'm not trying to kill him - that's
knowing (and note why it's relatively rare to actually see it). I point the trigger at the guy's leg, intending to wound him, but hit the femoral artery and it kills him - that's
reckless, because of my disregard for the very real possibility of death. I'm out shooting in the woods and don't check to see if there's a backpacker where the bullets are landing, and I hit and kill someone - that's
negligent, because while I didn't mean to kill him, I should have known better than to do that. Finally, I'm out shooting and take every precaution that I possibly can to avoid harm to anyone and anything, but my bullet still hits and kills someone - if I'm found guilty of something, it would be
strict liability, because what I meant to do does not matter.[end edit]
I don't know what Mass's law says - but if it's anything less "knowingly," this is a guaranteed conviction. Just because something might have been "normal" for this girl, which I don't believe for a second, doesn't make it acceptable for society.
What it comes down to is that our laws deem it more important for society to be able to function without interruption than it is for some stupid girl to be able to interrupt the functioning of society because she has a statement to make.
Sus
)