OF COURSE it's meaningful in a way that reciting jabberwocky would not have been. Reading the part of the constitution which protects people from unreasonable searches without probable cause, while being forced to undergo a search without probable cause.

If it's still unclear how the amendment is meaningful in this situation, I'm going to ask that you go re-read the original article, then "letters from birmingham jail" and the whole bill of rights.

That being the case, her treatment was for resisting the search, not reciting the constitution. Reciting the constitution was merely how she resisted the search.

I'm not claiming that the amendment is not meaningful. I'm pointing out how the amendment's meaning is relevant to what happened. The original article makes it clear that the reciter didn't understand that relevance.

BTW I haven't written anything about the legitimacy of TSA searches so your presumptions along those lines are unfounded and insulting. And, before you presume to teach me something, learn the difference between recite and read. (Hint - she did the former, not the latter.)

So really, your whole point here is 2 grammatical quibbles that everyone else could get past just fine?

You seemed to think that those "quibbles" were important when you thought that they supported your position, so surely they're just as important when they don't.

She misrepresented what she did.

BTW - Comparing what she did with King cheapens King.