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.
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.
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.
…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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
IMHO it’s a step away from yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater. This isn’t like an “Impeach Bush” or “Startle Cheney” button.[/quote]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
