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?
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
-
Both federal and international law regard the pilot as equivalent to the captain of a ship at sea, meaning his discretion is almost absolute;
-
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. 
But, seriously, yes, he could indeed demand that the Bush sucks t-shirt be removed, and that guy’s lawsuit isn’t going anywhere.
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.[/quote]
That we have to have this asinine arguments points out the fundamental problem with this.
Jason, see the edited version of my post above. Once the cabin door is closed, the pilot’s discretion is just about absolute.
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.
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.
[quote=“Jason_Levine”]
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.[/quote]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.