EFF founder booted from airplane for political button

[Jason McCullough]

Here (http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html).

Maybe I'll just take Amtrak to Texas for Christmas.


My sweetheart Annie and I tried to fly to London today (Friday) on
British Airways. We started at SFO, showed our passports and got
through all the rigamarole, and were seated on the plane while it
taxied out toward takeoff. Suddenly a flight steward, Cabin Service
Director Khaleel Miyan, loomed in front of me and demanded that I
remove a small 1" button pinned to my left lapel. I declined, saying
that it was a political statement and that he had no right to censor
passengers' political speech. The button, which was created by
political activist Emi Koyama, says "Suspected Terrorist".


The steward returned with Capt. Peter Hughes. The captain requested,
and then demanded, that I remove the button (they called it a
"badge"). He said that I would endanger the aircraft and commit a
federal crime if I did not take it off. I told him that it was a
political statement and declined to remove it.

They turned the plane around and brought it back to the gate, delaying
300 passengers on a full flight.

Reading the details just makes it worse.

[DennyA]

What a load of crap. On Gilmore's part, not the airlines.

Wearing a "Suspected Terrorist" button is akin to walking through security and joking about a bomb.

Say what you will about personal rights of protest, but I can damn well understand why aircrews are jumpy about this kind of stuff. And I'm sure there were passengers who wouldn't be amused either.

Refusing to take off the button was mere self-aggrandizing -- he would have been in no way harmed or inconvenienced by taking off the button during the flight and putting it back on upon landing.

And showing IDs may not provide much actual security, but it does have utility in making things more difficult for potential hijackers (IE: buying a ticket for grandma and substituting Janey Jihad in her place) and in helping trace what happens AFTER a disaster (knowing who was on the 9/11 craft.)

If Gilmore wants to make himself useful, he could sue for the LACK of effective security on today's flights, rather than being an ass about what's a very minor issue.

[Tom Chick]

Wearing a "Suspected Terrorist" button is akin to walking through security and joking about a bomb.

Is it? How so? Apparently, it wasn't a joke at all, but a political statement. It sounds to me like Gilmore simply wasn't allowed to fly because BA was uncomfortable with his political statement.

It'll be interesting to see what and if there's any fallout from this.

-Tom

[Jason McCullough]

Say what you will about personal rights of protest, but I can damn well understand why aircrews are jumpy about this kind of stuff. And I'm sure there were passengers who wouldn't be amused either.


.....except the other passengers didn't care when he asked them. And I wasn't aware the emotional well-being of airline pilots was a subject for federal regulation.


And showing IDs may not provide much actual security, but it does have utility in making things more difficult for potential hijackers (IE: buying a ticket for grandma and substituting Janey Jihad in her place) and in helping trace what happens AFTER a disaster (knowing who was on the 9/11 craft.)

Tracking everything that every human being does for his entire life may not provide much security, but hey, they'll sure be able to figure out who to blame anytime something bad happens!

[Skies]

But isn't that what The First Amendment is about? The ability to express your opinion without fear of persecution. But this holds true for someone who voices an opinion that makes your blood boil.

He may be a self agrandizng ass, DennyA, but it's his constitutional right to do so.

That is until Patriot Act 3...

[Brad Grenz]

This is like that Green Party official who created a scene, basically for the sake of creating a scene. You may have a 1st amendment right to free speech, but British Airways has no obligation to facilitate that right. Starbucks can kick you out of the coffee shop for making speeches if they want, too. They have every right to refuse you service if they so choose. So they asked you to take off a button. God forbid, I bet they wanted him to pay for the ticket, too! Those fiends! Making an honest dissident give them money as a condition of the service they were providing. I bet he couldn't even sit where he wanted, or bring a gun on the flight or shit on the drink cart! Facists! NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, they inconvinence 300 people. So did you, all you had to do was remove the fuucking pin. God, I hate people like that.

[Jason McCullough]

There's a difference between British Airways booting you off their airplane for political speech - which isn't at issue, because at no point did British Airways say they were booting him for doing so. The issue is vague security regulations that let airlines boot you for wearing a frickin' button, giving a justification of "security."

It'd be fine if they kicked him out of Wal-Mart or something, but airlines are different; they're quasi-governmental.

Of course, it's more of a hook to point out the ludicrous "safety" measures than any speech issues.

[Brad Grenz]

They shouldn't let anyone have pins on planes! They're sharp!

[Major Malphunktion]

But isn't that what The First Amendment is about?

Sure but it was a British plane.


They shouldn't let anyone have pins on planes! They're sharp!

That's what I was thinking. Scary man with the sharp pin.
I'm flying commercial for the first time since 9/11. Am I scared? not really.
Is all the extra BS you have to go through gonna bother me? No..just plan accordingly. No change, no watch, no pocketknife,no shoelaces (Merrels),no smokes, no lighter.Clean shaved, and haircut.
Now I might be in trouble if they go through my magazines for the flight...Nation, Mother Jones, Boston Globe - OH NOT the BG!

[DennyA]

He may be a self agrandizng ass, DennyA, but it's his constitutional right to do so.
IMHO it's a step away from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. This isn't like an "Impeach Bush" or "Startle Cheney" button.

[quatoria]

He may be a self agrandizng ass, DennyA, but it's his constitutional right to do so.
IMHO it's a step away from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. This isn't like an "Impeach Bush" or "Startle Cheney" button.

How so? He's not wearing a button that states "I HAVE A BOMB" or "I'M GOING TO HIJACK THE PLANE!" He was standing up for his rights. Were they in questionable taste? Yes. Was it a dick move to inconvenience all the other passengers just to make a stand? Yes. Should we be glad that there are people willing to be dicks in order to stand up for their, and our, rights? Abso-fucking-lutely.

[Nathan Phoenix]

This guy is an ass. If I had to turn around and go back to the airport because some jackass won't take a 1" button, he'd be lucky if he got off the plane without receiving some type of bodily injury. When you fly, you pay for the privelidge, not a right, to be on that airplane. That privelidge can be revoked as the airline sees fit.

[Ben Sones]

What a load of crap. On Gilmore's part, not the airlines.


I agree. And crying out for free speech protection is also a load of bull. You have the right to make any sort of political statement you want, of course, but the airline (which is a private--or public, as the case may be--company, not the government) has the right to throw you out on your ass if you can't follow their rules, too. You don't have the inalienable right to ride on their airplane.


It'd be fine if they kicked him out of Wal-Mart or something, but airlines are different; they're quasi-governmental.


In what way?

[MikeJ]

When you fly, you pay for the privelidge, not a right, to be on that airplane. That privelidge can be revoked as the airline sees fit.

So in this case the airline decided to exercise their option to revoke flight privilege. The passenger clearly does not have the power to delay the flight. BA decided they didn't like the pin, so they turned the plane around.

Of course, this was a highly irrational decision on the part of BA. No reasonable person could conclude that this EFF guy posed any more threat than the typical passenger. However, as you rightly note, they don't need any reason to kick the guy off. Somehow this makes the delay the fault of the EFF guy.

[Ben Sones]

It's pretty common knowledge that airlines (especially now) have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to making fictitious statements about acts of terrorism, even in obvious jest. It's possible that the EFF guy simply didn't realize that, but it seems unlikely.

So yeah, the delay was his fault.

[TimElhajj]

It's pretty common knowledge that airlines (especially now) have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to making fictitious statements about acts of terrorism, even in obvious jest. It's possible that the EFF guy simply didn't realize that, but it seems unlikely.


You would have a hard time convincing me that the button was equal to making a joke about hijacking the plane.

[Jason Levine]

The fact that it was a British plane is meaningless here, since it was sitting on the ground at U.S. airport when this incident occurred. However, the First Amendment has no application here, since for purposes of the U.S. Constitution, British Airways is either a private company or a quasi-governmental British company. Makes no difference either way, because the 1st Amendment has no application in either case. If the incident occurred on public property--in the airport gate area of example--it would be a different question, but the guy would still probably lose. The courts have consistently upheld speech restrictions where any arguable relation to security at airporst is involved. And there is such a relationship here. Stupid relationship, perhaps. But arguable nonetheless.

[Ben Sones]

You would have a hard time convincing me that the button was equal to making a joke about hijacking the plane.

What's the difference?

[TimElhajj]

What's the difference?

One is a bad joke, the other is a self described political statement.

[Timemaster Tim]

He's an ass for being so dogmatic about keeping the button. But shouldn't it have been rather obvious to BA that he was making a political statement.

If wearing the button was truly the equivalent to a bomb joke in this era of zero tolerance, then should he not have been stopped at the security checkpoint?

[quatoria]

Zero tolerance itself is a ridiculous concept. It's predicated on the idea that your employees are too stupid to exercise human judgement during the course of their duties without failing colossally or exposing their company to lawsuit. This is the standard we should have for our national security? Stupid employees kept in check by stupider rules?

[MikeJ]

It's pretty common knowledge that airlines (especially now) have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to making fictitious statements about acts of terrorism, even in obvious jest. It's possible that the EFF guy simply didn't realize that, but it seems unlikely.


Well I can see your point here. Even if the airline's reaction is not reasonable, as long as it was wholly predictable he could avoid the inconvenience to the other passengers (and maintain his principles) by not getting on the plane in the first place.

However, it's not clear to me that the airline was definitely going to boot him (another Captain could easily have had a different opinion in this case, the pin didn't say "I have a bomb"). If he got through security wearing the pin I think he would have a reasonable expectation that the airline wouldn't boot him for wearing it. Therefore the delay would be the airline's fault.

If however he concealed the pin going through security or before boarding the plane it would indicate he was pretty sure it would get him tossed. In that case it would just be a carefully engineered stunt.

[DennyA]

Zero tolerance itself is a ridiculous concept. It's predicated on the idea that your employees are too stupid to exercise human judgement during the course of their duties without failing colossally or exposing their company to lawsuit. This is the standard we should have for our national security? Stupid employees kept in check by stupider rules?
It's not so much a standard as it as an acceptance of reality.

Not to go all Ayn Rand/Cleve Blakemore, but the average IQ is just 100, y'know... That means for every person that posts on this board, there's a few 80s running around... For every Cheney, there's a Bush...

[Ben Sones]

One is a bad joke, the other is a self described political statement.

I don't see how this makes much difference to the airline, though. If the airlines say that false statements (even obviously false statements, as is usually the case with jokes) of intention to commit terrorism are forbidden, then why should they offer special treatment to the guy making a political statement?

As it stands, they did give him special treatment. If he had made a joke about a bomb, they would have had him in handcuffs immediately. But they gave him a chance to remove the button (and informed him of the consequences of noncompliance) before hauling his ass back to the gate. I'd say he got off easy.

[quatoria]

The point is, these are NOT the people we should be hiring to protect us at our most vulnerable points. How in the hell could we possibly depend on people trained and outfitted on the basis of their stupidity to outfox people who have chosen to spend their entire fucking lives dedicated to ending as many of ours as possible? The "security" situation is patently ridiculous, as the constant headlines of "fake handgrenade slipped past security", "passenger found midflight with pistol", "STOWAWAY FOUND ON PRESIDENT'S FUCKING PLANE," should make painfully clear.

[Jason McCullough]

Since everyone's got such a wonderful ability to discern between "threatening political speech on 1" buttons" and "ok political speech", do tell which of the following are justifiable to get you booted off an airplane:

A copy of the Nation with a terrorism story on the front cover.
A Tom Clancy novel where terrorists do something bad.
A "Bush's War on Terror Sucks" shirt.
A copy of Z-Mag with a cover declaiming that the US deserved it.
A pin saying "suspected terrorist".

I'm sure there's subtle differences!


When you fly, you pay for the privelidge, not a right, to be on that airplane. That privelidge can be revoked as the airline sees fit.

As mentioned in a linked article, I strongly suspect any industry as heavily regulated as the airlines won't be able to get away with denying him service based on private accomodations law. *Especially* when they didn't give that reason; they said it was based on the federal security policy.

[TimElhajj]

I don't see how this makes much difference to the airline, though. If the airlines say that false statements (even obviously false statements, as is usually the case with jokes) of intention to commit terrorism are forbidden, then why should they offer special treatment to the guy making a political statement?

I think the very clear implication is that he's breaking federal law. "He said that I would endanger the aircraft and commit a federal crime if I did not take it off." Now I can see the crew feeling the aircraft was threatened if someone yells "Hijack" on a crowded plane as a joke, but I don't see it with the button. I don't think the crew of the plane really believed the aircraft was in danger because of the button either. They were just opposed to this man's political statement, and choose to combat it with what they had closest at hand: enforcement of the federal law that says yelling hijack on a plane is dangerous and punishable. It's just a huge stretch to see it otherwise.

[XPav]

Some of this gets back to the "role" of the pilot on the aircraft. Is he the "captain of the aircraft", taking responsibility for everything on board with the authority to throw anyone he wants off, or is he a bus driver?

[Jason Levine]

Some of this gets back to the "role" of the pilot on the aircraft. Is he the "captain of the aircraft", taking responsibility for everything on board with the authority to throw anyone he wants off, or is he a bus driver?

He's more than a bus driver. Federal law requires passengers to obey the instructions of the flight crew. Of course, those instructions have to be lawful. In this case, the pilot may be overreacting in terms of what is perceived as threatening, but I don't see his telling the guy to remove the button as unlawful.

[Jason McCullough]

Could the pilot demand he remove a "bush's war on terror sucks" shirt?

[Jason Levine]

Could the pilot demand he remove a "bush's war on terror sucks" shirt?

Edited to change my answer:

I asked our resident aviation law expert who used to work for the pilot's union. She made two points:

1) Both federal and international law regard the pilot as equivalent to the captain of a ship at sea, meaning his discretion is almost absolute;

2) When you purchase an airline ticket (or purchase travel through ticketless travel) you're entering into a contract with the airline. That contract includes the "Conditions of Carriage." Every airline has the same conditions of carriage. I copied American Airlines' from their website:

"American may refuse to transport you, or may remove you from your flight at any point, for one or several reasons, including but not limited to the following:

"Refuse to obey instructions from any flight crew member,
Have an offensive odor not caused by a handicap or illness,
Are clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers . . . ."

I left the offensive odor line in because it probably applies to most regulars here. :wink:

But, seriously, yes, he could indeed demand that the Bush sucks t-shirt be removed, and that guy's lawsuit isn't going anywhere.

[Jason McCullough]

Could the pilot demand he remove a "bush's war on terror sucks" shirt?

I would say probably not. However much a stretch it is, you can make a credible argument that a button which essentially announces that you're a terrorist is threatening. There's no implied threat in the Bush t-shirt. However, if it caused any commotion in the cabin, I could see the pilot demanding that he remove it or cover it up as disruptive, and I think the pilot's actions would be upheld.

That we have to have this asinine arguments points out the fundamental problem with this.

[Jason Levine]

Jason, see the edited version of my post above. Once the cabin door is closed, the pilot's discretion is just about absolute.

[XPav]

Thanks for the expert opinion Jason.

Now just because its written in a contract doesn't make it legal, after all. I wonder if the EFF guy is going to take the airline to court on some sort of free-speech basis. We can only see.

I suspect that if he had gotten thrown off the plane for a "Bush's war on terror sucks" t-shirt though, he would have a better case.

[Jason Levine]

Now just because its written in a contract doesn't make it legal, after all. I wonder if the EFF guy is going to take the airline to court on some sort of free-speech basis. We can only see.

I suspect that if he had gotten thrown off the plane for a "Bush's war on terror sucks" t-shirt though, he would have a better case.

But there you get back to the point that an airliner interior isn't a place where the right to free speech applies. Not too many lawsuits get tossed out of court without a trial these days, but I'm guessing this one will.

[XPav]

Now just because its written in a contract doesn't make it legal, after all. I wonder if the EFF guy is going to take the airline to court on some sort of free-speech basis. We can only see.

I suspect that if he had gotten thrown off the plane for a "Bush's war on terror sucks" t-shirt though, he would have a better case.

But there you get back to the point that an airliner interior isn't a place where the right to free speech applies. Not too many lawsuits get tossed out of court without a trial these days, but I'm guessing this one will.

So airline pilots could toss out, say, Howard Dean staffers talking about their campaign strategy because they were making other passengers on the plane "uncomfortable?" If they said "Yeah, well, there are many people who think that Bush sucks, so we can exploit that", does that mean that the plane captain can go "shut up or I'll kick you off the plane?"

Obviously, its the same "fire in a crowded theatre" thing, but we're talking about a button here.

This portion of the post is rather funny:

I asked whether I would be permitted to fly if I wore other buttons,
perhaps one saying "Hooray for Tony Blair". She said she thought that
would be OK. I said, how about "Terrorism is Evil". She said that I
probably wouldn't get on. I started to discuss other possible
buttons, like "Oppose Terrorism", trying to figure out what kinds of
political speech I would be permitted to express in a BA plane, but
she said that we could stand there making hypotheticals all night and
she wasn't interested. Ultimately, I was refused passage because
I would not censor myself at her command.
and


Annie asked why she, Annie, was not allowed to fly. She wasn't
wearing or carrying any objectionable buttons. Carol said it's
because of her association with me. I couldn't have put it better
myself -- guilt by association. I asked whether Annie would have been
able to fly if she had checked in separately, and got no answer.
(Indeed it was I who pointed out to the crew that Annie and I were
traveling together, since we were seated about ten rows apart due to
the full flight. I was afraid that they'd take me off the plane
without her even knowing.)

Annie later told me that the stewardess who had gone to fetch her said
that she thought the button was something that the security people had
made me wear to warn the flight crew that I was a suspected
terrorist(!). Now that would be really secure.

[Jason Levine]

So airline pilots could toss out, say, Howard Dean staffers talking about their campaign strategy because they were making other passengers on the plane "uncomfortable?" If they said "Yeah, well, there are many people who think that Bush sucks, so we can exploit that", does that mean that the plane captain can go "shut up or I'll kick you off the plane?"

Obviously, its the same "fire in a crowded theatre" thing, but we're talking about a button here.



Yes, it does mean he can. But, you've got to remember that there's a difference between can and will. I do a lot of traveling for my job, and most pilots that I've met along the way seem like fairly rational human beings.

If you want to get to get all up in arms about this button, fine. But, frankly, I think a flight crew's hypersensitivity to an asshole wearing a "suspected terrorist" button is perfectly understandable. After all, how many of their colleagues did real terroists murder on Sept. 11? I read this letter from the EFF guy and the whole tone is "see what a smart-ass I am and how stupid the airline people are?" He doesn't have a clue what an incredible asshole he is. If his fellow passengers had beaten the shit out of him before he was tossed off the plane, he would have richly deserved it.

[quatoria]

My father is an airline pilot. My father was scheduled to fly in New York, for United, on september 11th. I was woken up that morning by a frantic phone call from my mother trying to reassure me that my father was not dead. I lost several friends in the collapse of the towers. None of that changes the irrationality of throwing someone off a plane for wearing a button.

And those of you repeatedly proclaiming that the other passengers should have broken the law and beaten this man (who has, amusingly enough, chosen to spend his time engaging in the rather thankless task of trying to protect ALL of our rights in the digital age) and his companion for refusing to censor themselves disgust me utterly. When, exactly, did you lose the ability to comprehend the kind of vile shit you are spewing? Beating is an appropriate response to inconvenience? Do you backhand your children when they wake you up at night for comfort? Kick your dog if it urinates on the rug? Utterly fucking moronic.

[XPav]

Amen quatoria. I thought I wrote a post saying what you said, but it got lost. But I got your back. When Jason Levine comes to beat you up we'll beat him up instead.

[Jason Levine]

Well, here I am, assuming the posting time screw up thingy doesn't lose this post too. But be warned. I live in Chicago and have several, er, true Chicagoans as friends. :wink:

Seriously, I didn't say the guy should be beat up for incovenience factor, but I would very much understand it if his fellow passengers had been intolerant of his attempt to make a joke out of terrorism on airliners. And quatoria, I'd be very curious to know what your father thinks of this guy's attempt at making a statement.

I'm glad this guy devotes himself to protecting digital free speech. That doesn't make wearing that button on an airliner the right thing to do. There's a time and place for everything. And he very much chose the wrong time and place. The pilot was well within his rights to ask him to remove the button, and well within his rights to have him tossed off the plane when he didn't.

[quatoria]

Well, here I am, assuming the posting time screw up thingy doesn't lose this post too. But be warned. I live in Chicago and have several, er, true Chicagoans as friends. :wink:

Seriously, I didn't say the guy should be beat up for incovenience factor, but I would very much understand it if his fellow passengers had been intolerant of his attempt to make a joke out of terrorism on airliners. And quatoria, I'd be very curious to know what your father thinks of this guy's attempt at making a statement.

He wasn't making a joke about terrorism, he was wearing the buttom to make a point about the incredibly fucked up priorities of our security process. To wit, we've got a laser beam focus on superficial and meaningless bullshit, but have massive gaping holes that any potential terrorist could exploit - and have done nothing about them since 9/11, and show no sign of doing anything about them, because it would be expensive.

As for my father, there's no way in hell he'd eject someone from his aircraft for wearing a button. Because, amazingly enough, he's a rational human being able to figure out what the fuck is a threat and what isn't.

[quatoria]

And you know, for that matter, Jason, if his fellow passengers had used physical force or the threat of physical force in an attempt to intimidate him into changing his behavior, opinion, or beliefs, what, exactly, would that have made them?

[Jason Levine]

And you know, for that matter, Jason, if his fellow passengers had used physical force or the threat of physical force in an attempt to intimidate him into changing his behavior, opinion, or beliefs, what, exactly, would that have made them?

It would have made them paying passengers who had had enough of a selfish prick who had decided for himself that the point he was making was more important than everyone else on the plane.

Look, actually, I'm glad the passengers let the thing be handled properly. Which was what the pilot did, btw. You seem to suggest that your Dad is more rational than the British Airways captain in question. But remember all we have here is the take from the EFF guy's side, and even that says that he wasn't kicked off the plane until after he refused the requests of both the flight attendant and the captain that he remove it. In other words, he wasn't kick off for wearing the button, he was kicked off for refusing to obey the captain's lawful order.

Now let's say that one of your father's flight attendants comes to him and says, "that passenger with the "suspected terrorist" button is making me nervous and he refuses to remove it." Does your father back up his flight attendant or blow her off in favor of the passenger's free speech rights? Is this as simple as you suggest?

[bmulligan]

1) Both federal and international law regard the pilot as equivalent to the captain of a ship at sea, meaning his discretion is almost absolute;

2) When you purchase an airline ticket (or purchase travel through ticketless travel) you're entering into a contract with the airline. That contract includes the "Conditions of Carriage."

Planes are not public property. Not 'sort-of', They dont have FAA stamped on the side so anything the company and their representatives say goes. Whats so hard to understand about these rules? If you don't like it, don't fly BA. It's pointless to argue property rights with people who don't believe in private property to begin with.

Personally I would have snatched that friggin pin and destroyed it in front of him as long as he didn't have 19" guns. They could arrest me for assault when I touched down at Heathrow.

[Jason McCullough]

Such an.....angry....response.

Where, exactly, is this airline that's doesn't obey federal security requirements?

[Skies]

When I made my earlier post regarding the 1 st Amendment, I knew the "yelling fire in a theater” argument would be raised. It really doesn’t hold up here, as some of you have stated.

In fact everyone has made pretty good points regarding the whole “majority rules, minority rights” issue. Would this have happened if he was wearing a pin for the National Socialist party or a KKK pin? How about a pin with the Hydra symbol on it? (Hydra was SHIELD's nemesis in the Nick Fury, Agent of Shield comics.) Would these symbols have made people nervous as well? But then what real terrorist would advertise the fact.

How far do we go with this rule of fear by proxy?

Actually Jason’s points hold true, he was removed for refusing to obey the Captain’s order and once the door is closed the Captain’s word is law. Good thing this didn’t happen on a ship

[Mark Asher]

Could the pilot demand he remove a "bush's war on terror sucks" shirt?

I would say probably not. However much a stretch it is, you can make a credible argument that a button which essentially announces that you're a terrorist is threatening. There's no implied threat in the Bush t-shirt. However, if it caused any commotion in the cabin, I could see the pilot demanding that he remove it or cover it up as disruptive, and I think the pilot's actions would be upheld.

That we have to have this asinine arguments points out the fundamental problem with this.

I side with the airline on this. If you have a passenger who has refused to do what a flight attendant has requested, that's reason enough to boot a passenger. The request that he remove the button wasn't unreasonable.

You guys have to remember that airlines have had problems with passengers becoming unruly during flights. If you have a passenger who's already ignoring flight attendants while the plane is on the ground, why would you want to take off with that passenger and risk him going wacko in the air? Frankly, if I was a passenger, I think I'd want the guy off my plane too. I'm willing to surrender all my free expression rights for the duration of a flight. I want them to land my ass gently on the ground.

[Jason McCullough]

Technically, the *Steward* told him to remove it, and only went to the Captain for backup.

[DennyA]

Even if you think he had a reasonable right to wear the pin, the fact remains that the "non-assholish" thing to do would have been to register a protest, remove the pin, and complain to British Airways upon reaching his destination.

But the two flaws to this theory are:
1) You can tell from reading his email about the whole thing that "non-assholish" isn't his nature, and
2) If he'd done that, he wouldn't have gotten all the attention and publicity.

[XPav]

I emailed Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com) about this. His comment:


Just looked at that: My answer is that British Airlines is a private company, and is generally entitled to control what is said or worn on its flights. True, this right of private property owners is constrained in some measure as to discrimination based on race, religion, sex, ethnicity, and probably disability; but as to other matters, the right remains -- they can set up the rule, just as a restaurant can set up rules about whom they can serve.

So, while we may argue about whether or not this guy should be beaten up, whether or not he's an asshole, and whether or not the FAA rules are stupid or not, the upshot is -- its British Airway's plane and they can ban whatever speech they want on it.

[Bub, Andrew]

XPav, I just followed your link. Interesting. Brief me please. Who is this Volokh and what is this site for really? And is that a real name because it's pretty damn cool.

[XPav]

The Volokh Conspiracy is a group blog with mainly libertarian/conservative law professor writers. They're rather smart, and don't do the liberal-bashing smarmy thing like say, Instapundit (www.instapundit.com) has fallen into recently.

Eugene Volokh appears to be the smartest man on the face of the planet (http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/), as he got his CompSci BS at age 15 from UCLA and then after that got a law degree, and clerked for the Supreme Court before taking on his teaching position at UCLA.

So basically, he appears to be one of the few bloggers that actually knows what the hell they're talking about. The other conspirators are also very rather good at what they do.

[Jason McCullough]

Volokh normally knows what he's talking about, so I hate to cross him, but don't common carrier rules work into this?

I don't agree with him on everything, but I recommend the site; they booted the bizarro Clayton Cramer, which means they're on the Side of Light here.

[XPav]

Yeah Cramer was a nutbag -- one day after he started posting I emailed Eugene and said "this guy drags you down". Next day he was out. I don't think I was the only one that commented on him.

[Brad Grenz]

Volokh normally knows what he's talking about, so I hate to cross him, but don't common carrier rules work into this?

I don't agree with him on everything, but I recommend the site; they booted the bizarro Clayton Cramer, which means they're on the Side of Light here.

Christ, you need to totally get over this "quasi-governmental" bullshit. We all abide by government regulations, obey federal laws and pay taxes. That doesn't make everything and everyone "quasi-governmental". My parents pay property taxes on their house, but they don't have to let someone hold a pro-choice rally in the living room if they don't want to.

[Jason McCullough]

Wonderful strawman you have there.

[Brad Grenz]

You showed me.

[Jason Levine]

Volokh normally knows what he's talking about, so I hate to cross him, but don't common carrier rules work into this?



Brad's "strawman" aside, the fact that you have to abide by common carrier rules does not make you a quasi-governmental entity, and nothing in those rules requires you to become a forum for public speech, anymore than any workplace that has to follow OSHA rules has to allow free speech. The fact that government regulates your industry doesn't make you part of the government.

[Rywill]

Volokh normally knows what he's talking about, so I hate to cross him, but don't common carrier rules work into this?
They do in the sense that they apply to airlines, but they don't in the sense that they have nothing to do with free speech. Common carriers are simply regulated in not being able to refuse passage based on prohibited reasons (race, gender, disability/illness). They're certainly allowed to refuse passage for non-prohibited reasons, such as disfavored speech, disruption, or refusal to obey lawful requests.

In other words--and hopefully you won't consider this a "strawman" and then refuse to respond to it--BA could kick the guy off for loudly proclaiming that Osama is right and all Western planes should be hijacked or blown out of the sky. The guy has every right to say that on public property, but an airliner is not public property and if the airline doesn't like the content of your speech they can tell you to either shut up or get off the airplane. You might think they were wrong to object to the button, but they certainly had the right to object to it.

[Jason McCullough]

The strawman I was complaining about was was Brad's ridiculous "pro-choice rally in your house" example.

Thanks for the CC clarification.

And does the reasoning they gave to the guy matter, legally? If they flat out stated that it was "due to the government security policy," rather than "reserve right to refuse service to anyone"?

[XPav]

And does the reasoning they gave to the guy matter, legally? If they flat out stated that it was "due to the government security policy," rather than "reserve right to refuse service to anyone"?
Its easy to blame the government. Airlines employees love to toss off "Federal Regulations say..." when they don't really know why a policy is in place.

For example, read the reason why afore mentioned EFF guy doesn't fly from state to state.

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,54464,00.html

The airlines say "We need your ID to travel -- its a federal law". He says "ok, show me the law." The arlines go "Errrrrr....."

[DennyA]

The airlines might require ID because of a secret government rule. I honestly don't know if there is one," Hasbrouck said.
These are some paranoid futhermuckers.

[Jason McCullough]

Well they won't tell you what the rules actually are, as that "might violate security."

[Kalle]

Come on man, if you want to swear you might as well do it properly.

[Jason Levine]

I think there might be some confusion here between the airlines requiring a photo ID and a photo ID required by airport security.

Since you can check-in to a flight and obtain a boarding pass via PC from your home or office or by using one of those self-serve electronic kiosks at the airport, it's obvious that the request to see your ID when you check in at the airline's counter in the airport is a matter of airline policy, not a legal requirement. However, it neither astonishes me nor particularly upsets me that the counter personnel aren't well informed about the origin of that policy, because it is very much a legal requirement that you have to show a photo ID to get to the airplane (http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=87&content=529).

So if the EFF guy wants to make a big point out of the fact that there's no legal requirement to show an ID to the counter agent, well, whoop-de-do. I'll say it again. I'm glad this guy is devoted to on-line free speech. I really do think that's a wonderful cause. However, it does not change my opinion that, from everything I read about him, he's a self-important asshole.

[Bub, Andrew]

Law or not... why should I mind if they ask for my ID at the counter? Seems reasonable to see if you match the name on the ticket.

[Jason McCullough]

Because requiring ID for travel is something the USSR did?

[Rywill]

And does the reasoning they gave to the guy matter, legally? If they flat out stated that it was "due to the government security policy," rather than "reserve right to refuse service to anyone"?
I don't know, but I can't think of any reason that it would. If I throw you out of my house because I don't like your anti-war stance, and say I'm doing it because government regulations require me to, what's the result? You can't sue the government over it (like for violation of your First Amendment rights) because the government's just going to say "Hey, we had nothing to do with this, regardless of what Rywill said." And I don't see what you could sue me for. It's not illegal to lie about my reasons for throwing you out of my house. It's not my area of specialty, but I don't see anything.

[Rywill]

Because requiring ID for travel is something the USSR did?
So? They also arrested and prosecuted muggers (the ones who weren't government bureaucrats, anyway :wink: ). You want to do away with that idea too? Just because the USSR did it doesn't mean it's totalitarian. Some security measures actually make sense.

[Jason Levine]

Because requiring ID for travel is something the USSR did?

Oh, give me a break. Is anybody asking for your ID when you jump in your car and drive from state to state? And you had the nerve to complain about Brad's strawman.

[Chris Nahr]

Because requiring ID for travel is something the USSR did?

Yeah, so why don't you like it?

(Hey, sorry, you know damn well someone had to post this... :) )

[XPav]

Because requiring ID for travel is something the USSR did?
Oh, give me a break. Is anybody asking for your ID when you jump in your car and drive from state to state? And you had the nerve to complain about Brad's strawman.
The EFF guy is making that analogy. He says "I can drive from state to state without showing ID, and the constitution protects that. Why can't I fly from state to state without showing ID?"

I think the end result of that suit (which is currently going through) is that the rules won't be changed, they'll just be published, and that's a good thing.

[Jason McCullough]

Very funny.

[Jason Levine]

The EFF guy is making that analogy. He says "I can drive from state to state without showing ID, and the constitution protects that. Why can't I fly from state to state without showing ID?"

I think the end result of that suit (which is currently going through) is that the rules won't be changed, they'll just be published, and that's a good thing.

Perhaps because no one's found a way to destroy 100-story skyscrapers and kill thousands of people with hijacked cars? Is this guy for real?

[Bub, Andrew]

McVeigh was effective enough though. With a truck.

Besides, to drive a car you are required to have an ID. I bet the Soviets came up with that idea too. Right McCullough?

[Jason Levine]

McVeigh was effective enough though. With a truck.

Uh, I think he had to load a great, big bomb into the truck to make it an effective weapon of mass destruction. If someone highjacks my family minivan, they might be able to take out someone's living room, but without adding an additional weapon, that's about it. As we saw all too well on 9/11, an airliner with a full fuel load can be a horrendous weapon all by itself, and that, of course, is the difference.


Besides, to drive a car you are required to have an ID. I bet the Soviets came up with that idea too. Right McCullough?

You're required to have an ID as proof of competence (supposedly) to drive. I don't know about you security crazy German immigrants in Wisconsin, but down here in Illinois nobody asks to see that ID everytime I open the garage door.

[quatoria]

Because requiring ID for travel is something the USSR did?

That's a pretty weak argument, Jason. The USSR also had laws and a system of currency. Should we do away with those? You are fully capable of better arguments than that.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, for chrissakes. *Conservatives* spent years pointing out how the USSR was a police state, and how you had to have official documents and what not to travel anywhere, and how that was bad. By contrast, I don't recall anyone complaining about the USSR's currency system or prosecution of murderers.

[Desslock]

And those of you repeatedly proclaiming that the other passengers should have broken the law and beaten this man (who has, amusingly enough, chosen to spend his time engaging in the rather thankless task of trying to protect ALL of our rights in the digital age)

Yeah, he's a real hero. It's equivalent to someone sitting down in the middle of traffic and making people wait hours while he blocks traffic doing hand-stands after being told by a crossing guard to leave the street. Gee, it's really horrible that someone might want to get out of a car and throw this asshole out of the road. How barbaric that they'd actually use physical force instead of sitting there like lemmings for hours. Get some perspective.

[Rywill]

Yeah, I have to agree with Desslock. It's great that he's standing up for free speech rights, but his problem is that he has no free speech rights on a plane and so the point he's "making" is completely nonsensical. More than anything, he reminds me of Walter from "The Big Lebowski," making a scene to stand up for his imagined right to swear at the top of his voice in a family restaurant: "Well, lady, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint! Hey, Dude, don't leave, this affects us all! I'm gonna sit here and finish my coffee! . . . Finishin' my coffee." What an ass. And the funny (or maybe sad) thing is that he doesn't realize what a jackass he is; he thinks he's the only one taking a moral stand here. Making others suffer for the sake of your misguided thoughts about what rights you have is not something we should be applauding.

[DennyA]

McVeigh was effective enough though. With a truck.
Yeah, and I'm sure Captain Civil Liberties would be outraged that there were cameras and ID checks at the Ryder place where McVeigh and Nichols rented the truck. (Even though that did lead to their capture...)

[quatoria]

And those of you repeatedly proclaiming that the other passengers should have broken the law and beaten this man (who has, amusingly enough, chosen to spend his time engaging in the rather thankless task of trying to protect ALL of our rights in the digital age)

Yeah, he's a real hero. It's equivalent to someone sitting down in the middle of traffic and making people wait hours while he blocks traffic doing hand-stands after being told by a crossing guard to leave the street. Gee, it's really horrible that someone might want to get out of a car and throw this asshole out of the road. How barbaric that they'd actually use physical force instead of sitting there like lemmings for hours. Get some perspective.

The law already has the perspective you lack. Beating someone up will get you assault and battery, and a pleasant stay behind bars. "But your honor, he was ANNOYING AND INCONVENIENCING ME," will get you exactly as far in court as it will get you with me. Fucking nowhere. I'm sincerely amazed by the number of otherwise intelligent people in this forum who are apparently dedicated subscribers to the belief that violence or the threat of violence is a totally acceptable way to deal with problems in daily life.

[Jason McCullough]

McVeigh was effective enough though. With a truck.
Yeah, and I'm sure Captain Civil Liberties would be outraged that there were cameras and ID checks at the Ryder place where McVeigh and Nichols rented the truck. (Even though that did lead to their capture...)

Yes, because the important thing is to capture criminals after they commit their crimes. God knows we apparently can't stop them beforehand with our surveillance technologies.

[DennyA]

Yes, because the important thing is to capture criminals after they commit their crimes. God knows we apparently can't stop them beforehand with our surveillance technologies.
Well, duh. Nobody's arguing that it's not better to stop them before something happens.

So you're saying there's no sense in capturing them after? Just let them blow up something else? You must be, if you don't see that there's value in capturing criminals after the fact as well.

[XPav]

Jasons arguing for a national database that tracks purchases, books read, and acquaintances so that criminals that read books on how to make bombs, rent trucks, and buy fertilizers will be automatically flagged and arrested by the FBI.

[Jason Levine]

The law already has the perspective you lack. Beating someone up will get you assault and battery, and a pleasant stay behind bars. "But your honor, he was ANNOYING AND INCONVENIENCING ME," will get you exactly as far in court as it will get you with me. Fucking nowhere. I'm sincerely amazed by the number of otherwise intelligent people in this forum who are apparently dedicated subscribers to the belief that violence or the threat of violence is a totally acceptable way to deal with problems in daily life.

In my "daily life" I don't generally encounter someone who holds up an entire airliner full of people in order to make some specious point. Now if someone actually injured Mr. EFF as a result of his "stand," yes, he'd deserve to be prosecuted. On the other hand, you'll have a very tough time finding a prosecutor who will file charges or a jury who will convict a fellow passenger who tells him "to sit down and shut up or I'll shut you up."

[quatoria]

The law already has the perspective you lack. Beating someone up will get you assault and battery, and a pleasant stay behind bars. "But your honor, he was ANNOYING AND INCONVENIENCING ME," will get you exactly as far in court as it will get you with me. Fucking nowhere. I'm sincerely amazed by the number of otherwise intelligent people in this forum who are apparently dedicated subscribers to the belief that violence or the threat of violence is a totally acceptable way to deal with problems in daily life.

In my "daily life" I don't generally encounter someone who holds up an entire airliner full of people in order to make some specious point. Now if someone actually injured Mr. EFF as a result of his "stand," yes, he'd deserve to be prosecuted. On the other hand, you'll have a very tough time finding a prosecutor who will file charges or a jury who will convict a fellow passenger who tells him "to sit down and shut up or I'll shut you up."

Then why, exactly, did you previously state that "If his fellow passengers had beaten the shit out of him before he was tossed off the plane, he would have richly deserved it?" Your post indicates that you agree he should have been beaten. You can't ride both sides of the fence here, Jason. Either you feel he should have been physically assaulted, or you don't. Have you now changed your position that he "deserved" to be beaten for refusing to remove a button?

[Bub, Andrew]

You're required to have an ID as proof of competence (supposedly) to drive. I don't know about you security crazy German immigrants in Wisconsin, but down here in Illinois nobody asks to see that ID everytime I open the garage door.

Heh, a driver's License is proof you are competent to drive, yes, but also proof you are who you say you are. In Milwaukee it lets you pass the SS checkposts.

One could argue it was the boxcutters that made the plane into a lethal weapon Levine. But I wasn't really splitting hairs in the first place, so much as I was mocking McCullough. :)

[Jason McCullough]

I'm saying justifying a privacy-invasive technology designed to catch people before they commit a crime with "sure, it doesn't work for what its designed for, but at least it lets us find them after the commit the crime!" is kind of wierd.

[Jason Levine]

If I can't play both side of the fence in these forums, what fun is it? :wink:

Seriously, I would have sympathized greatly with the passengers if they had taken it upon themselves to let Mr. EFF know exactly what they thought of his "moral" stand in physical terms. Would I have convicted any one of them of battery, if I were on a jury resulting from such an incident. I'd honestly have to say it would depend on how badly he was hurt. A black eye or a bloody nose? Don't think so. Broken bones? Probably. Does that make me a barbarian? OK, I'm a barbarian.

BTW, you never answered my question from yesterday. What if one of your Dad's flight attendants complained to him about Mr. EFF and his refusing to remove the button. Does your Dad back her up or does he value Mr. EFF's "free speech rights" over his colleague?

[quatoria]

If I can't play both side of the fence in these forums, what fun is it? :wink:

Seriously, I would have sympathized greatly with the passengers if they had taken it upon themselves to let Mr. EFF know exactly what they thought of his "moral" stand in physical terms. Would I have convicted any one of them of battery, if I were on a jury resulting from such an incident. I'd honestly have to say it would depend on how badly he was hurt. A black eye or a bloody nose? Don't think so. Broken bones? Probably. Does that make me a barbarian? OK, I'm a barbarian.

BTW, you never answered my question from yesterday. What if one of your Dad's flight attendants complained to him about Mr. EFF and his refusing to remove the button. Does your Dad back her up or does he value Mr. EFF's "free speech rights" over his colleague?

You're right, I didn't. Sorry, I don't make it a habit to make long distance phone calls in order to satisfy the random curiosity of people I don't know. If you'd like to paypal me the cost of the call, on the other hand...

[Jason Levine]

You're right, I didn't. Sorry, I don't make it a habit to make long distance phone calls in order to satisfy the random curiosity of people I don't know. If you'd like to paypal me the cost of the call, on the other hand...

Lord, what an amazing copout! Since the question was directly relevant to the topic of the thread, and your pronouncement that your father would never put the guy off his plane, calling it "random curiosity" is, shall we say, disengenuous at best.

[TimElhajj]

You're right, I didn't. Sorry, I don't make it a habit to make long distance phone calls in order to satisfy the random curiosity of people I don't know. If you'd like to paypal me the cost of the call, on the other hand...

No hurry. Send him a letter, we'll wait.

[Rywill]

Only if you paypal him 37 cents, Tim. Plus the cost of paper. Oh, and ink.

[Jason Levine]

You're right, I didn't. Sorry, I don't make it a habit to make long distance phone calls in order to satisfy the random curiosity of people I don't know. If you'd like to paypal me the cost of the call, on the other hand...

No hurry. Send him a letter, we'll wait.

Heh, seriously, I wasn't expecting quatoria to actually ask his/her (?) Dad. Since he gave us his opinion on what his father would do before, that's all I was asking for this time.

[quatoria]

You're right, I didn't. Sorry, I don't make it a habit to make long distance phone calls in order to satisfy the random curiosity of people I don't know. If you'd like to paypal me the cost of the call, on the other hand...

No hurry. Send him a letter, we'll wait.

Heh, seriously, I wasn't expecting quatoria to actually ask his/her (?) Dad. Since he gave us his opinion on what his father would do before, that's all I was asking for this time.

First, if you're going to use his/her once, fucking commit to it. I'm deeply morally outraged by one reference to me as his/her and one just plain his. MORE FENCE SITTING, I SEE. Second, if you don't want me to specifically ask, fine - if a flight attendant came to my father during preflight and told him that someone was wearing a button and refusing to remove it, he'd tell the flight attendant to get back to doing the fucking job of getting the plane ready to take off and stop worrying about what was written on people's fucking buttons.

[TimElhajj]

So you're saying Dad would have just pointed to his own button that reads: Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?

[quatoria]

So you're saying Dad would have just pointed to his own button that reads: Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?

He's not a person to be overly concerned with trivial bullshit, which is what someone wearing a pin is.

[Jason Levine]

First, if you're going to use his/her once, fucking commit to it. I'm deeply morally outraged by one reference to me as his/her and one just plain his. MORE FENCE SITTING, I SEE. Second, if you don't want me to specifically ask, fine - if a flight attendant came to my father during preflight and told him that someone was wearing a button and refusing to remove it, he'd tell the flight attendant to get back to doing the fucking job of getting the plane ready to take off and stop worrying about what was written on people's fucking buttons.

First of all, I wasn't trying to make some kind of statement with the his/her reference. It occurred to me after I first posted that message that I really couldn't tell from your handle if "quatoria" belonged to a male or female. So I edited the message to add the his/her. I'm afraid I made a bad job of it by not editing the entire post. Sorry if I caused offense, but it was not intended.

Now that we now what highly morally offends you, I'll tell you what highly morally offends me. What highly morally offends me is your trivialization of the real harm that people like Mr. EFF cause with their self-important stunts by referring it as an "inconvenience." Oh, really? If a businessman on that flight lost an important account due to missing a meeting, was that an "inconvenience." If another passenger missed a vital connection and had to shell out for a layover in London (which, under the circumstances the airline would not be required to pay for), was that also an "inconvenience?"

You know what, quatoria, you've convinced me. Beating the guy up would be wrong. You're absolutely right, let's rely on the law. He says he's going to sue British Airways, right? Great, I hope he does, and I hope British Airways countersues for the cost of the jet fuel burned in taxiing back to the gate. I hope every passenger on that flight who suffered a financial loss due to the delay sues his self-centered ass also. He'll lose everyone of those suits and then maybe he'll get the message. But I doubt it.

[Jason McCullough]

Yes, what are constitutional rights compared to getting a plane somewhere on time?

[quatoria]

First, if you're going to use his/her once, fucking commit to it. I'm deeply morally outraged by one reference to me as his/her and one just plain his. MORE FENCE SITTING, I SEE. Second, if you don't want me to specifically ask, fine - if a flight attendant came to my father during preflight and told him that someone was wearing a button and refusing to remove it, he'd tell the flight attendant to get back to doing the fucking job of getting the plane ready to take off and stop worrying about what was written on people's fucking buttons.

First of all, I wasn't trying to make some kind of statement with the his/her reference. It occurred to me after I first posted that message that I really couldn't tell from your handle if "quatoria" belonged to a male or female. So I edited the message to add the his/her. I'm afraid I made a bad job of it by not editing the entire post. Sorry if I caused offense, but it was not intended.

Good lord, man. I was YANKING YOUR CHAIN. I wasn't in any way, shape, or form offended. I am fully aware that my psudonym does not lend itself to easy determination of gender.


Now that we now what highly morally offends you, I'll tell you what highly morally offends me. What highly morally offends me is your trivialization of the real harm that people like Mr. EFF cause with their self-important stunts by referring it as an "inconvenience." Oh, really? If a businessman on that flight lost an important account due to missing a meeting, was that an "inconvenience." If another passenger missed a vital connection and had to shell out for a layover in London (which, under the circumstances the airline would not be required to pay for), was that also an "inconvenience?"

Those are very entertaining hypotheticals, Jason. As that is all they are - hypotheticals - they are both meaningless and unanswerable.


You know what, quatoria, you've convinced me. Beating the guy up would be wrong. You're absolutely right, let's rely on the law. He says he's going to sue British Airways, right? Great, I hope he does, and I hope British Airways countersues for the cost of the jet fuel burned in taxiing back to the gate. I hope every passenger on that flight who suffered a financial loss due to the delay sues his self-centered ass also. He'll lose everyone of those suits and then maybe he'll get the message. But I doubt it.

That would absolutely be their right, and if he loses his case and the airline/passengers decide to countersue, more power to them.

[cyborg]

The only people who win in the culture of the lawsuit are the lawyers.

[Rywill]

Yes, what are constitutional rights compared to getting a plane somewhere on time?


Those are very entertaining hypotheticals, Jason. As that is all they are - hypotheticals - they are both meaningless and unanswerable.

Both fucking classics. I had briefly sworn off this forum, but once you learn to look at it in the right way, P&R rocks. I wish I had had this "hypotheticals are meaningless and unanswerable" line when I was going through lawschool. Take that, Professor Brainiac!

[DennyA]

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would have written a longer, more specific Constitution if they'd known the type of jerks that would be climbing out the woodwork 230 years later...

[Jason McCullough]

"How about we let the new government demand your papers whenever they feel like it?"

"Sounds great!"

[quatoria]

Yes, what are constitutional rights compared to getting a plane somewhere on time?


Those are very entertaining hypotheticals, Jason. As that is all they are - hypotheticals - they are both meaningless and unanswerable.

Both fucking classics. I had briefly sworn off this forum, but once you learn to look at it in the right way, P&R rocks. I wish I had had this "hypotheticals are meaningless and unanswerable" line when I was going through lawschool. Take that, Professor Brainiac!

I'm sorry, Rywill, do you honestly believe that it's a useful investment of time to think up possible ways in which the three hundred passengers on the plane were inconvienced by this event and then evaluate how much right they had to beat up the guy based on how specifically irritating or damaging each of those individual non-existant hypothetical problems were? Or are you merely taking a shot at me, as seems to have become your new obsession?

Not that I mind being obsessed over.

[Rywill]

Have I previously taken shots at you? Sorry if you feel like you're being singled out. That certainly wasn't my intention. Here's what I saw happen: Jason Levine said that Mr. EFF was an asshole. You said that what Mr. EFF did was really no big deal, because people were merely "annoyed and inconvenienced." Jason pointed out that having your flight delayed can be a lot more than an "inconvenience"; it can cost you a lot of time and money and can have effects on people other than just the ones on the plane. He threw out a couple of examples to show you how that might happen. Instead of responding to that in any way, you just said "Well, uh, hypotheticals are meaningless and unanswerable."

I doubt that you really think that, of course (if you do, you're a bit of a dolt). I think you're just tossing it out there because you don't want to admit that you're wrong--which is something that goes on a lot here in P&R, that I am learning to appreciate for its comic value if nothing else. So I wasn't meaning to single you out, really.

FWIW, I certainly agree with you that Mr. EFF doesn't deserve to be physically beaten for being such an ass. It's a pity, but of course he will never actually get sued and have to pay for all the damage he did. That's just the way society goes sometimes--putting up with self-important dumbasses is kind of the cost of doing business.

(STFU Elhajj :wink: )

[Rywill]

"How about we let the new government demand your papers whenever they feel like it?"

"Sounds great!"
That's a great point. I can't see any distinction between being asked for ID getting on a plane and being asked for papers at the whim of any police officer. There's just no way to draw a line between those scenarios. Thanks for showing me the light, Jason! Of course, I guess by the same logic that's going to mean no government oversight of anything, because of course any security measures that we submit to are just one step down the inevitable road to totalitarianism. Whew! That was a close one.

[quatoria]

Have I previously taken shots at you? Sorry if you feel like you're being singled out. That certainly wasn't my intention. Here's what I saw happen: Jason Levine said that Mr. EFF was an asshole. You said that what Mr. EFF did was really no big deal, because people were merely "annoyed and inconvenienced." Jason pointed out that having your flight delayed can be a lot more than an "inconvenience"; it can cost you a lot of time and money and can have effects on people other than just the ones on the plane. He threw out a couple of examples to show you how that might happen. Instead of responding to that in any way, you just said "Well, uh, hypotheticals are meaningless and unanswerable."

That's not quite how it happened, Rywill. I agree that he was an asshole. That doesn't mean I think he was wrong to refuse to remove his button. However, what Jason Levine said that I most specifically took exception with was that the people on the plane should have beaten the hell out of the man for refusing to remove his button. That was ludicrous. And there was no productive way for me to respond to hypothetical situations about what kind of problems this may or may not have caused for the people on the flight. What can be resolved by discussing problems that may or may not have happened?

[Ben Sones]

Yes, what are constitutional rights compared to getting a plane somewhere on time?

You have read the Constitution, right?

I mean, come on. Where was the outcry for Cleve's Constitutional rights when he was booted off Qt3? The airline is not the government, and it is not obligated to protect your First Amendment rights on its airplanes any more than Tom and Mark are obligated to guarantee your First Amendment rights on their message board.

[Brad Grenz]

The strawman I was complaining about was was Brad's ridiculous "pro-choice rally in your house" example.

Well, you can be awfully obtuse when you want to be, so I used an extreme example so as to not confuse you with subtlty. But it looks like it has backfired on me as my example was so obvious you chose to use that as an excuse not to defend your, as we've pretty handily demonstrated, indefensible position!

What I want to know is what effect will your dream policy of never showing your ID to anyone ever have on your social engineering projects such as residential redistricting? How will you be able to tell who is who, let alone who is poor and should be relocated to a rich neighborhood?

[Jason McCullough]

So there's a way to fly between states that doesn't require you to present ID?

[TimElhajj]

So there's a way to fly between states that doesn't require you to present ID?

If you own the plane there is.

[Brad Grenz]

You can also drive and walk/run between states. Again, commercial flights are a service being provided to you, and they can make that service contingent upon you proving you are you with an ID. What's so hard to understand about that? You don't have a constitutional right to take a plane.

Do you really think making air travel completely annonymous would be "good" is some way?

[Jason McCullough]

I guess we'll see on the federal regulation requirement argument whether it's just a denial of service or not.

[DennyA]

If we want to protect our Constitutional rights, I say we just elect McCullough to the Senate.

Since arguments with him never end (notice the near-Jenkinsian post count), the Senate would essentially be thrown into an eternal filibuster, and thus no new laws restriciting our rights to be assholes on commercial aircraft will ever be passed.

[Ben Sones]

I'm all in favor of protecting my Constitutional rights. As many people in this thread (including all the lawyers) have pointed out, however, that isn't an issue in this case.

[Jason Levine]

What can be resolved by discussing problems that may or may not have happened?

Hey, Rywill, I wish I had that one when I was in law school too! :P I'm also damned glad none of my law students never used it on me. :wink:

[Rywill]

That's not quite how it happened, Rywill. I agree that he was an asshole. That doesn't mean I think he was wrong to refuse to remove his button.
Can you explain that to me? Because that sounds like you're saying it's right to be an asshole, and I think for most people, by definition being an "asshole" is the wrong thing to do. So that seems like a bit of a contradiction. Maybe you think it's right to challenge the government's or the airline's passenger regulations, but this was the wrong way to do it. But if so, you'd have to admit that he was wrong to make an issue out of his button. I don't get it.


However, what Jason Levine said that I most specifically took exception with was that the people on the plane should have beaten the hell out of the man for refusing to remove his button.
I understand that you took exception to that. I didn't agree with that either, as I already said. But as part of your taking exception to that, you said that the guy's actions were no big deal because all they did was "annoy and inconvenience" people, and Jason pointed out that you were wrong, and you dismissed him with that bit about hypos being meaningless and unanswerable. Which I said was dumb.


What can be resolved by discussing problems that may or may not have happened?
A lot, actually. If you really think that Mr. EFF's actions couldn't possibly have done more than annoy and inconvenience people, you could respond to Jason's hypos and show how greater effects were impossible. OTOH, if Jason's hypos show that the consequences of Mr. EFF's actions could have been, and likely were, more than mere "annoyance and inconvenience," then you could back down and say "Yeah, you know, this guy was risking fairly serious harm to 400 people--but probably not himself--just to make a point, and that's pretty lame." When used properly, hypos can be a very effective tool for making a point or exploring parts of a debate.

But really, it was just a silly one-liner by you and a one-liner retort by me, and now we've spent like three posts dissecting it, so I'm done. Have the last word.

[quatoria]

That's not quite how it happened, Rywill. I agree that he was an asshole. That doesn't mean I think he was wrong to refuse to remove his button.
Can you explain that to me? Because that sounds like you're saying it's right to be an asshole, and I think for most people, by definition being an "asshole" is the wrong thing to do. So that seems like a bit of a contradiction. Maybe you think it's right to challenge the government's or the airline's passenger regulations, but this was the wrong way to do it. But if so, you'd have to admit that he was wrong to make an issue out of his button. I don't get it.

God, so many nested quotes. Replying to this is going to be a hassle. Rywill: I don't think the button ever SHOULD have been an issue. I think it's ludicrous that he was asked to remove it. If I were in his situation, I would have removed the button, because I wouldn't want to inconvenience the other passengers, but I think he was in the right insofar as he should never have been asked to remove the button at all.



However, what Jason Levine said that I most specifically took exception with was that the people on the plane should have beaten the hell out of the man for refusing to remove his button.
I understand that you took exception to that. I didn't agree with that either, as I already said. But as part of your taking exception to that, you said that the guy's actions were no big deal because all they did was "annoy and inconvenience" people, and Jason pointed out that you were wrong, and you dismissed him with that bit about hypos being meaningless and unanswerable. Which I said was dumb.

I didn't say that they were no big deal - I said that annoying and inconveniencing people was not just cause for a beating. And Jason did NOT point out that I was wrong - he pointed out that there was a possibility I could have been wrong, on the basis of situations that may or may not have existed. There is no way for us to know, without interviewing each passenger, how they were impacted by the delay. It seems far more reasonable to assume that it was a minor inconvenience rather than a catastrophic life shattering event, however, particularly as delays of half an hour or more are not uncommon in even routine air travel.



What can be resolved by discussing problems that may or may not have happened?
A lot, actually. If you really think that Mr. EFF's actions couldn't possibly have done more than annoy and inconvenience people, you could respond to Jason's hypos and show how greater effects were impossible. OTOH, if Jason's hypos show that the consequences of Mr. EFF's actions could have been, and likely were, more than mere "annoyance and inconvenience," then you could back down and say "Yeah, you know, this guy was risking fairly serious harm to 400 people--but probably not himself--just to make a point, and that's pretty lame." When used properly, hypos can be a very effective tool for making a point or exploring parts of a debate.

I never said that they COULDN'T POSSIBLY have done more than annoy and inconvience people. You're taking the statement out of context and attempting to apply it in a manner I never intended. And in what manner was he "risking serious harm" to 400 people? How in the hell does wearing a button harm anyone? Is it rational to expect that a delay of 30 minutes is "serious harm" to most people?


But really, it was just a silly one-liner by you and a one-liner retort by me, and now we've spent like three posts dissecting it, so I'm done. Have the last word.

[Ben Sones]

When used properly, hypos can be a very effective tool for making a point or exploring parts of a debate.

Especially when they are dripping with sweet, wonderful morphine.

[bmulligan]

I find it hard to believe this delay was only 30 minutes. They had to remove him, his companion, probably locate and remove his luggage, and re-prepare to taxi for takeoff, then get back in line. The delay was probably more like 60-90 minutes.

What if there was a sick passenger being flown to London for an emergerncy operation? Would he have taken off the button?

What if they were transporting an organ for transplant?

What if somone was going to england to see their dying mother who only had hours left to live?

Gilmore is an arrogant SOB who thinks he 'speaks' for the people to safeguard our rights while denying others the right to speedy and convenient travel, simply because he claims to have the 'right' to say whatever he want's on someone else's airplane.

Yeah, the security measures are stupid, somewhat pointless, bordering on draconian, but should we do nothing to address security as Gilmore implies? Some of the same folks who complain about the new security are the first ones to complain about the lack therof when boxcutters were used as weapons. So, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

If you don't like BA's policies, find a different airline, if you can't find a commercial one, find a charter, if you can't find a charter, find a boat, if you can't find a boat, freaking swim back to England you whiny crybaby bizitch.

[quatoria]

Yeah, the security measures are stupid, somewhat pointless, bordering on draconian, but should we do nothing to address security as Gilmore implies? Some of the same folks who complain about the new security are the first ones to complain about the lack therof when boxcutters were used as weapons. So, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

I've never gotten the impression that his position was nothing should be done about security. I was under the impression that his position is that we should be doing things that actually DO increase security, instead of focusing all our time and effort on increasing the APPEARANCE of security. Then again, why am I trying to have a rational discussion with you, of all people? Nevermind.

[Desslock]

Yeah, he's a real hero. It's equivalent to someone sitting down in the middle of traffic and making people wait hours while he blocks traffic doing hand-stands after being told by a crossing guard to leave the street. Gee, it's really horrible that someone might want to get out of a car and throw this asshole out of the road. How barbaric that they'd actually use physical force instead of sitting there like lemmings for hours. Get some perspective.

The law already has the perspective you lack. Beating someone up will get you assault and battery, and a pleasant stay behind bars. "But your honor, he was ANNOYING AND INCONVENIENCING ME," will get you exactly as far in court as it will get you with me. Fucking nowhere. I'm sincerely amazed by the number of otherwise intelligent people in this forum who are apparently dedicated subscribers to the belief that violence or the threat of violence is a totally acceptable way to deal with problems in daily life.

There actually is a defense of provocation in precisely those circumstances, although it's more of a mitigating factor than an outright defence to otherwise illegal actions.

Physically attack someone? Pay the price. But there should also be a price for being an asshole and fucking up people's lives, and if someone gave that guy a smack in the chops, I wouldn't blame them for being pissed, and I strongly doubt a court would impose much of a sentence either. I'd rather live in a place where people didn't passively sit there like sheep and allow themselves to be walked on by some moron, and were willing to stand up to that sort of harrassment - In short, I'd rather have a bunch of John Waynes than a bunch of Richard Dreyfusses running around.

[quatoria]

There actually is a defense of provocation in precisely those circumstances, although it's more of a mitigating factor than an outright defence to otherwise illegal actions.

Sorry, Desslock, but refusing to remove a button falls far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far below the legal requirements for a defense of unreasonable provocation. You might want to bone up on the law before you decide to go on a beating frenzy - I'd hate to be deprived of your RPG reviews.

[Kool Moe Dee]

Sorry, Desslock, but... You might want to bone up on the law before you decide to go on a beating frenzy - I'd hate to be deprived of your RPG reviews.

Heh. Ahem.

[quatoria]

Sorry, Desslock, but... You might want to bone up on the law before you decide to go on a beating frenzy - I'd hate to be deprived of your RPG reviews.

Heh. Ahem.

Yes, Kool, I know Stefan was (is?) a corporate lawyer. That just compounds the fact that he should know the situation in question hardly qualifies as unreasonable provocation.

[Desslock]

There actually is a defense of provocation in precisely those circumstances, although it's more of a mitigating factor than an outright defence to otherwise illegal actions.

Sorry, Desslock, but refusing to remove a button falls far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far below the legal requirements for a defense of unreasonable provocation. You might want to bone up on the law before you decide to go on a beating frenzy - I'd hate to be deprived of your RPG reviews.

Actually there's a very similar significant case involving provocation -- it's a loser defence, solely politically motivated to allow judges to change the result when they think the facts warrant it -- and largely vanished from jurisprudence these days (because it's goofy), although it was historically significant.

I'm only speaking of British/Canadian jurisprudence, where provocation was adopted primarily to allow people to get off of murder charges if they killed their spouse's lover, or someone said "the Queen sucks!" -- the consequence wasn't acquittal, but a reduction in the charge to manslaughter (and the doctrine of provocation had little application in other crimes). It's a stupid doctrine that shouldn't exist, in any event.

Aside from all that - you're focusing on the button, while I don't think most people are here -- the guy's sole "offense", as far as I'm concern, is not doing what the airline staff asked him to do, and as a result he's harrassing every other passenger. I'm not commenting on the validity of the airline policy, let alone the judgment of the airline staff -- both of which are probably ridiculous and offensive -- but not obeying the instructions of the airline, and deliberately fucking up the lives of hundreds of people as a result, is moronic, and I'm not surprised it pissed people off enough to yell at the guy and/or try to otherwise remedy the situation. Allowing someone to walk all over your own rights, when you can do something about it, is as abhorrent to me as physical violence.

[quatoria]

Aside from all that - you're focusing on the button, while I don't think most people are here -- the guy's sole "offense", as far as I'm concern, is not doing what the airline staff asked him to do, and as a result he's harrassing every other passenger. I'm not commenting on the validity of the airline policy, let alone the judgment of the airline staff -- both of which are probably ridiculous and offensive -- but not obeying the instructions of the airline, and deliberately fucking up the lives of hundreds of people as a result, is moronic, and I'm not surprised it pissed people off enough to yell at the guy and/or try to otherwise remedy the situation. Allowing someone to walk all over your own rights, when you can do something about it, is as abhorrent to me as physical violence.

The only reason I'm focusing on the button is because that's the only issue that is significant to me. It was ridiculous that he be asked to remove a button. It's ridiculous that anyone would even have paid attention to it.

Without question, the airline had the right to eject him for refusing to obey a command by the captain. Without question, it was inconsiderate of him to delay all the other passengers on the plain simply to make a point. I would not have done either of these things, and have said so repeatedly.

[Desslock]

The only reason I'm focusing on the button is because that's the only issue that is significant to me. It was ridiculous that he be asked to remove a button. It's ridiculous that anyone would even have paid attention to it.

Without question, the airline had the right to eject him for refusing to obey a command by the captain. Without question, it was inconsiderate of him to delay all the other passengers on the plain simply to make a point. I would not have done either of these things, and have said so repeatedly.

We are in complete agreement on the button. Insert clever pun, or something.

[Jason Levine]

Of course, quatoria, what you're refusing to recognize it that what makes the guy an ass isn't just refusing to remove a button, it's his willingness to let the situation escalate to the point where the captain decided that it was necessary to have him removed from the aircraft.

All we have to go on there is his side of the story. I'm just a little skeptical that everything went down exactly as he states. In my travels, I've encountered both British Airways crews and United crews, and I'm not knocking your father when I say that the BA folks seem just as rational as the United crews to me.

[quatoria]

Of course, quatoria, what you're refusing to recognize it that what makes the guy an ass isn't just refusing to remove a button, it's his willingness to let the situation escalate to the point where the captain decided that it was necessary to have him removed from the aircraft.

All we have to go on there is his side of the story. I'm just a little skeptical that everything went down exactly as he states. In my travels, I've encountered both British Airways crews and United crews, and I'm not knocking your father when I say that the BA folks seem just as rational as the United crews to me.

Most pilots that I have encountered, the few obnoxious hotshot egotists aside, have been intelligent and rational people. Aerodynamics isn't usually something for the stupid. Stupid pilots don't live very long, on the whole. I'm sure the pilot in this case was just standing by his flight crew, and there's nothing wrong with that. The later interviews, however, where the original flight attendant claimed that she thought the button "was put on by security to identify the individual as a suspected terorrist," shows fairly clearly that the flight crew in question were FUCKING NUTS.