EFF founder booted from airplane for political button

[Jason McCullough]

Here.

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?