Edited by author 11-12-2007 04:03 PM
Why in the world would somebody wear a button stating this in the first place.It's ridiculous to begin with, you should have expected some type of consequence.

My friend told me to visit your discussion because she said its interesting. She really was telling that truth. Indeed, your discussion is amazing. Ill surely go visit here again. Keep up the good work! :D Visit pain killers success story webpage devoted to pain killers success story. cipro 500 mg webpage devoted to cipro 500 mg. and have fun!

saw a post on here by Piratemonkey, if this is the same Piratemonkey from AmericanForum.net the old gang is back together at PatriotDebate.com

anyone else looking for good american political debate please come on over and take a look, we do our best to keep it level headed and bipartisan

Edited by author 08-03-2003 11:41 PM
You missed the point. People were calling for the forums to be taken down, and I wrote that I'm going to start asking for them to be taken down, which is ridiculous precisely because I'm a flame-baiting troll. It's called irony; you might want to look it up some time. I am glad you got a laugh, though, since that was my intention in writing it.

RE: self-deluded sack of shit like you

I assure you I'll remember that. You know you don't deal with criminals well. Avoid putting yourself in awkward situations by first refraining from personal insults. You're not up for confrontation on that level.

As to your killfile, this is the first I'm aware of that since I've only used the submit page twice, and haven't in several weeks. I did shout abuse at some people on these boards, so I can't blame you; but it does seem pretty pointless. Killfile people who harrass you, but why killfile someone who just disagrees with some of your readers?

Look, I don't give a fuck about you. All questions herein are rhetorical, and if you've thought for even one second that you have your "first stalker," you need to get over yourself. What you do have is someone who thinks you're a self-deluded sack of shit, with good reason.

1) Actions speak louder than words, and you've taken action. You directly insulted me, today.

2) You've also shown yourself to be naive, gullible, and completely oblivious on many occassions. One of my favorite things about this site is that it's a comedy of errors. "Cory Doctorow: The Blunder Years." In air-conditioned liberally-minded tech conferences, you may be God; but you're a chode the minute you step onto the street.

Like I said, though; it's not my concern who/what you are. That would be about as useful as yelling at the TV. I just come here because you collect some good links, and to have fun at some of your readers' expense.

FYI: I may tell jokes, but I never lie.

Edited by author 08-03-2003 01:50 PM
You're going to start asking for the forums to be cut off? Ahahahhahahahaaa! Jesus, that's fucking priceless.

Dutch, you've been in my killfile for months now. You can ask all you like. I think you'll find that:

a) I won't ever receive your message, because you're directed to /dev/null because you're a flamebaiting troll and a fool;

b) These forums will never ever be taken down because some self-deluded sack of shit like you thinks they should be.

But oh, do ask! Ask away! Ahahahahaha. God, that made my day, it did. I should have read this topic weeks ago.

>I'll withold judgement, though.

Since when did that become an option?

(maybe you have learned something)

-milo

Ok, so you're a big riddle, a true enigma, I can barely wrap my feeble little mind around your complex individual-ness.

Wrong. You will not understand me -- or anyone else on the Internet -- no matter how hard you try. There is nothing special about me that makes it futile for you to try in this specific case.

...and yet you get pissed off when other people declare, "I was born different, maaannnn!"

I get pissed off when they declare it. They can think it all they want. In certain forums set aside for that purpose, they can talk about it, so long as they recognize the uniqueness of other individuals and don't insist upon special rights to accomodate their uniqueness.

This is beside the point, but I also feel I should add that my moral code does not preclude me from engaging in hypocrisy. I recognize that stealing and violence are wrong, for example, and I do both anyway. Pointing out my hypocrisy will in no way prove that stealing and violence are morally correct.

And yet, you have also said several times that I should look in the mirror,
could it possibly be that you stand to learn something there as well?

Of course I could learn something. I already have. In fact, the whole purpose of getting into this was to learn something. What was your reason for getting into this?

(for the record, not a "punk" , and not a Buddhist)

If you're not a Buddhist, then how can you pretend to have any idea what you're talking about when you claim that I know nothing about Buddhism? Maybe because you're a punk? Quite a paradox, isn't it?

If you are not a Buddhist, are you a seeker of wisdom? Are you saying that it's my problem, not theirs, because you realize some spiritual truth about the nature of suffering? Or are you making this claim because you are a punk, and you think it's my problem that I judge your brethren harshly?

In /m177 I wrote that you have no idea whether I'm bullshiting you or not. To be more specific, I meant that you have no idea whether I really think you're a punk. I have no idea what motivates people.

I do know that you came into this discussion by accusing ___x of being blind to reality, and then followed up with the same bullshit against me. Not to mention that you got yourself wrapped up in some bullshit debate about Buddhism (as if such a thing is even possible), knowing full well that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'll withold judgement, though.

>I promise you that you will have no idea what you're
>talking about any time you talk about me.

Ok, so you're a big riddle, a true enigma, I can barely
wrap my feeble little mind around your complex individual-ness.

...and yet you get pissed off when other people declare,

>"I was born different, maaannnn!"

What you say sounds exactly the same from here.
And yet, you have also said several times that I should look in the mirror,
could it possibly be that you stand to learn something there as well?

You also spend a significant amount of time contemplating these
"punks" that you hate so much, either join up or let it go. Whichever you
decide you should realize than it is you that has the problem
not them.

"Physician heal thyself"

-milo (for the record, not a "punk" , and not a Buddhist)

"He who seeks his own happiness by oppressing others, who also desire to have happiness, will not find happiness in his next existence."

That is exactly why I can't stand punks. Quit trying to pigeon-hole me, and look at yourself. No matter how long you keep at it, I promise you that you will have no idea what you're talking about any time you talk about me.

There's no such thing as "fightclubism." Fight Club was a novel that reminded me a lot of my own friends and lifestyle -- end of story. It's a footnote, not a text to live by. You might as well accuse me of following "kitchenconfidentialism." And please don't mention my rabid "pointbreakism."

I realize a lot of people think Nancy-boys have the market cornered on Buddhism, but in reality that is just one more example of punk behavior in action. It takes a real punk to sit there and say, "I know the true path to enlightenment. I read it in a book!"

Seriously now, think about who's utilizing artificial social constructs to opress others. You have no idea if I'm bullshiting you or not, but you should know if you're bullshiting yourself.

Edited by author 07-22-2003 04:15 PM
"He who seeks his own happiness by oppressing others, who also desire to have happiness, will not find happiness in his next existence." Dhammapada Verse 131

Ok, so we're not talking about anything resembling actual Buddhism anymore, since enlightenment would involve being able to more truly feel the pain of others, as well as plenty of other basic concepts, that it sounds like you are familiar with, but have set aside in favor of a new philosophy, "fightclubism", perhaps?

I recall that there were several teachers who strongly warned against trying to gain true wisdom from a single text (or film in this case) but I do not have any useful references here. I am of the opinion that "fightclubism" has a few gaps, with regards to living a decent life in our society, but I could be wrong. Perhaps we should hope for a sequel that will provide a "new testament" for the faithful, allowing an individual to expand on the teachings and go beyond them without the need for a charismatic leader.

-milo

The master held out his staff and said to his disciples, "When, in olden times, a man reached the state of enlightenment, why did he not remain there?" No one could answer, and he replied for them, "Because it is of no use in the course of life." And again he asked, "After all, what will you do with it?" And once again he answered for them,

"Taking no notice of others,
Throwing his staff over his shoulder,
He goes straight ahead and journeys
Deep into the recesses of the hundred thousand mountains."


Engo sez: "If the action of one's ki is not independent of one's degree of enlightenment, one falls into a sea of poison." I guess that could lead to some kind of sociopathic state.

Wow, now that's off-topic.

Jesse M:

I see no need for further comment.

Dutch:
"So, there is some truth in what I wrote. I really didn't intend to say something about Buddhism, though. My point was just that Buddhists achieve clarity of vision due to the removal of mental stumbling blocks, and so do sociopaths. In a way, Buddhism is all about transforming the human experience."

But Buddhists would say that the most fundamental "mental stumbling blocks" are egocentrism and attachment to selfish desires. Are you denying that sociopaths are some of the most egocentric and selfish people in the world?

Jesse M., m/170: Can't think of where you can look for this, but maybe it will ring a bell. Basically, there are various stages of reincarnation, and various "realms" that one can be born into. You might be born as an evil person, or as one who is constantly hungry. Although persons fated to some existence may not become true Buddhas, there is a Buddha for each realm. It is even possible to be the Buddha of Greed, though greed is completely contrary to the enlightened way.

This should not be a goal of any Buddhist, and I'm really not sure if it's even taught anymore. I think this concept is where a lot of the great Chinese literature came from, though; the slightly deranged Buddhism which has Rabbit Buddhas and whatnot.

So, there is some truth in what I wrote. I really didn't intend to say something about Buddhism, though. My point was just that Buddhists achieve clarity of vision due to the removal of mental stumbling blocks, and so do sociopaths. In a way, Buddhism is all about transforming the human experience.

This has all been covered in Fight Club anyway, so I've never bothered trying to flesh it out. As frustrating as it is, I think Tom Robbins drew from a lot of the same material for the first part of Villa Incognito.

Dutch:
"I am the firm opinion that lacking human emotion and having no firm identity of your own makes everything much clearer. Think of it this way: Buddhist monks seek to eliminate the ego in order to gain mindful wisdom. The way I see it, I therefore hold twice as much wisdom as the typical person. Wrap that up and take it for lunch."

Aren't sociopaths supposed to be even more egocentric than ordinary people? And Buddhists certainly don't seek to eliminate "human emotion"...besides, it doesn't sound like you're very free from negative emotions like anger.

Piratemonkey, m/161:

I read some here are annoyed by buttons saying things you don't like them to say. One person admitted to assaulting someone who was holding a sign he didn't like (threw a bottle). Wow. Go America.

Just to clarify, I assaulted someone who was banging on my car and screaming at me. I don't like anti-abortion signs either, but the sign was secondary to the banging and screaming.

milovoo, m/156:

For the record, I am a NON-PSYCHOTIC Sociopath. I could flip at any time, but as of yet am perfectly rational and not dangerous unless confronted. Just because someone is a sociopath does not mean they can't deal with complex issues either. It just means they can't deal with any perceived insult or threat, and their "personal space" is surrounded by an electric fence.

I am the firm opinion that lacking human emotion and having no firm identity of your own makes everything much clearer. Think of it this way: Buddhist monks seek to eliminate the ego in order to gain mindful wisdom. The way I see it, I therefore hold twice as much wisdom as the typical person. Wrap that up and take it for lunch.

Gilmore is an asshole, that is obvious. He inconvienced 300 people because of his principles. All he had to do was remove the dangerous button and put it in his pocket. Then all would have been well. And if the captain then asked him to remove his turban he should have done that. If the captian had asked him to shave off his beard becuase it was making the flight crew nervous, Mr. Gilmore should have swallowed his asshole principles wholesale and shaved the thing off to save anyone some inconvenience. If the captain had asked him to remove his crucifix and star of david Mr. Gilmore should have politely asked which orifice he should cram them up so as not to inconvenience anybody with his goddam self-righteous holier-than-thou principles.


We've got a country to run goddamit, and the least thing we can do is make sure that the trains run on time.

http://tshirtgiant.site.yahoo.net/cts1020.html

Apparently there is also a Suspected Terrorist t-shirt.

Hi,

As the saying goes, a man's home is his castle. If I ask someone to leave my house, that person had better leave immediately, or else s/he is tresspassing. The same surely applies to any private business or other organization. I'm sure that someone could say "we don't serve niggers here" (for example), as long as the business doesn't receive government funds, but frankly, unless we're talking about the KKK, such an attitude would be counter-productive -- who in his right mind would tell a potential customer to leave, without good reason?

If John Gilmore *really* wanted to make a point with that specific message, he could have worn a PATCH (not a button/badge) with that message, securely sewn to his pants.

  "Please remove that patch."
  "Sure, got a knife??"
  "Um, please remove the pants"
  "My pleasure!"
  "STOP! PUT THEM BACK ON!!"

Another note about airplanes; they typically don't have police
officers riding on airplanes, who have jurisdiction on that plane, so if something happens, SOMEONE must have the authority to deal with it, and that person is the captain. Prevention is always the best
medicine.

Joking about bombs at an airport is a federal crime in the US and has been since before 9/11, I hear. I have no idea if a badge/button/patch on your clothes would count or not, but I think it'd be foolish to push my luck.

I agree on the airline dress-code thing.

I tend to agree that the captain's actions were probably within his discretionary boundaries. If there's a problem with what he did, it's probably entirely between him and his employer.

As for free speech, yes, some things are not allowed, and the large majority of the population will generally agree on such things.
Consider, for example, going to a public park, only to see a picture, tacked to a tree, of a backside view of some guy "making a deposit"; I think it safe to say that few people would see any need for that to be out in public. If you want to tack something like that to your bedroom wall, though, that's your personal business. Free speech also does not extend to requiring someone else to publish it; if it's a publication, you may have to get your own printing equipment and do your own
publishing, advertising, and distribution, on your own dime. I often hear of people whining about censorship just because someone else chooses to decline to publish something, even if it's otherwise within their publishing guidelines.


L> So you think he was wearing the pin all the way through security L> and onto the plane? I must have missed that point, because it L> seemed to me he slapped on the pin after he took his seat.

Yes? After he went through metal detector and luggage went through x-ray, and the airplane people merely ask him to take it off (as
opposed to giving it to them to hold for the duration of the trip)?
I think the whole issue was one of escalation. Someone thought the badge was questionable. If in doubt, do something about it; ask for it to be removed. A refusal to remove is suspicious (nearly everyone posting here seems to agree that they would have removed it if asked) and immediately indicates that you may be there for the specific
purpose of causing trouble. Etc.

Last time I flew, which was a month after 9/11, I was asked to show my cellphone to the person who was looking me over, while I was in Ft. Worth. She didn't ask me to, but I also unlocked it and showed her that it had current time. The look on her face gave me the definite impression that she'd suddenly understood WHY I'd turned it on (see http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/phone001205.html for a concrete example). Overall, I had the definite impression that the security proceedings had been devised by someone who wasn't really thinking of security and that the inspectors hadn't been trained any better. By the way, they had me move stuff around in my bag; perhaps they were concerned about being charged with theft or damage or being stuck by needles or some such thing, which doesn't sound unreasonable to me, yet would make it much easier to hide something if I had been inclined to.

--Scott.

he should have taken it off

he delayed 300 people because of his own principles

rather selfish

you should have taken it off

you delayed 300 people because of your own principles

rather selfish

I can't imagine the flight crew were ever concerned that they were possibly dealing with a terrorist.

I can't imagine the button posed a safety threat (like some
passengers who refuse to take their seats and buckle in when the light comes on).

Two possibilities here:
1) If a passenger refuses to comply with a request from the crew he gets kicked off - no if's and's or but's. The crew cannot be seen to back down in these situations. They had
no choice.

2) In this situation, someone probably figured that Mr. Gilmore was going to cause a scene one way or another. If
the crew had ignored his button, who knows what situation Mr. Gilmore would create later (at 39000 feet). So a decision was probably made to bring matters to a resolution sooner rather than later.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Ironic how the patron saint of Republicans can be spun to justify Gilmore's dumbassical deed. Though to be fair to Barry, I think he was referrin' to the Russkies.

avkillick:

What else was he going to refuse to do?
Hopefully he would refuse to take off his underwear or swear an oath to our Grande Leader Bush.

Just because you refuse to do something you have the Constitutional right to do doesn't mean you're a terrorist. You're beginning to sound like Ashcoft.

I read some here are annoyed by buttons saying things you don't like them to say. One person admitted to assaulting someone who was holding a sign he didn't like (threw a bottle). Wow. Go America.

With Gilmore and the laptop, I don't see anything that says he was stopping them from searching the laptop or checking that it works. I only see that he wasn't going to do their work for them.

I don't understand why security doesn't want to search it themselves. I've had security search my carry-on luggage. I certainly haven't been asked to unpack and repack my luggage myself, and I'd be worried if they did ask me to.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/st...88765%5E662,00.html

" A DISABLED man who was bundled off a Virgin Blue flight because staff thought he was drunk or a terrorist has settled a lawsuit against the airline."

" Mr Kyriacou, 37, broke his neck when he was 17 and has incomplete quadriplegia, limited control of his arms and legs and drooping eyelids and facial features."

" According to his claim, airline staff mistakenly believed he was intoxicated or some sort of religious fanatic or potential hijacker."

Settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Hey Dutch! You're funny! I wanna cuddly-wuddly you!

This gentlemen refused to follow a request made by the cabin services director and then the captain.

What else was he going to refuse to do.

Once you indicate that you are unwilling to comply with requests made by the crew of a plane, you have NO business being there.

While I applaud the points that Gilmore is trying to make (no ID to travel domestically in the case where the laptop was involved, and that we are all suspected of being terrorists, at least in airports, with the current case), I think he has chosen his battles fairly poorly.

In the laptop/ID incident, his point would have been made more clearly if the laptop had not been involved. Although some dual-battery laptops could of course be rigged to both operate AND contain a bomb, I find it at least somewhat reasonably connected to actual security to make folks show that they function. Not conflating this with the ID to fly domestically issue would have helped out in that incident a lot.

In this case, his little stunt would have perhaps been much more effective as a political act had it involved a public space, specifically a Federal govt. building (perhaps while attending trial over the ID issue? :-)
rather than involving a private party with discretion to disallow political statements in their vehicles.

I'm deeply aware of the fact that the defense of liberty requires extreme actions at times; I just find his judgement on which battles to fight, and his choice of battlegrounds, to be poor.

Dutch,

I'm glad you clarified your position. I now realize that there will be no resonable discussion with you about this, primarily because you are a sociopath (I don't mean that in a glib way - look it up). Most members of society can manage to avoid physical violence when confronting complex issues, but I guess this is not your way. Good luck with it, maybe we'll see you on the news someday.

-milo

Dutch said:"Just about a month ago, I got ambushed by some anti-abortion protestors. They were all gathered in the middle of this small town about a hundred miles from here, and started banging on my car as I tried to drive through them. This crazy bitch was holding a giant photo of a dead baby up to my window. I was drinking a beer at the time, so I threw the bottle at one of them."

Admittedly its slow today, but this post cracked me up! The ol' beer-bottle-as-weapon apparently isn't limited to the inside of bars for Dutch! :) And before people condemn his drinking and driving, please remember it only takes ONE hand to hold the beer, leaving a free hand for the wheel.

milovoo, m/112:

It seems to be very important for you to shut down those people that you disagree with.

What are you afraid of? What exactly is going to happen if these "punks", "retards", "stupid people" or college students speak their mind?

Is it just because, as you say, they "force their annoying presence" on you? Does that allow me censor you for being annoying?

On your time, you can do whatever you want. On my time, you have to show some respect. (I don't want to get into the nuances here, but I've found that punks are the most intolerent of all people. Despite their claims, they are the most intolerent of all social groups, except maybe fundamentalist Christians, but even that is pushing it.) If you can't act like an adult, and I have the authority to throw you out, you are going to be thrown out.

If somebody quietly reads a book titled Kill the Straight People, that is perfectly okay by me. It's when they start putting it on placards, stickers, buttons, and fliers that I get mad.

Just about a month ago, I got ambushed by some anti-abortion protestors. They were all gathered in the middle of this small town about a hundred miles from here, and started banging on my car as I tried to drive through them. This crazy bitch was holding a giant photo of a dead baby up to my window. I was drinking a beer at the time, so I threw the bottle at one of them.

I'm not sure how I feel about "metrosexual", but I'm glad that you can demonstrate the correct way to avoid personal attacks.

I am of the "fire with fire" school, better known as the "Bill O'Reilly School of Rhetoric." If somebody gets out of line, just shout them down! ^_^

moof, m/117:

Read carefully folks..
IF he had removed the button, he would have been allowed to fly. This is NOT at all like joking about bombs. When you joke about a bomb, the security people don't say; "we'll let you through.. IF you take it back". Basically, Gilmore was being told what to think.

Why don't you try reading carefully? Thinking and wearing buttons are two completely different things. You can wear all the buttons you want and still be incapable of rational thought (as many a liberal has proven). Conversely, Gilmore could have removed the button and thought about anything he wanted. He could have thought about raping small boys for all I care. Nobody told him how to think.

For Pete's sake people, if you can't be bothere to muster some independent critical thought of your own, at least leave others who DO have a brain and use it (perhaps even to dress oddly! SHOCK HORROR!) at peace.

Just for clarification, I'm calling you a jackass because you insulted people. Think whatever you want, but I do not put up with punk bullshit. If you're going to act like that, don't ever come to my city. If the rednecks don't get you for dressing funny, I'll get you for running your mouth.

...and an security intense area like an airplane is the correct place for this dialog?

I just meant in general.
Obviously, it comes down to whether any passengers would have felt somehow threatened by the pin or not. Personally, I wouldn't have had any problem with it, but everyone is different.
The Attorney General of the United States thinks calico cats are agents of the Devil. Me, I love me some calicos.
But it was up to the crew to assess the passengers' overall feeling of safety and comfort. So they may have made the right call if some, or even a few, would have been upset over this. Just didn't seem to me, personally, to be worth getting worked up over.

"What we need in this country is more open dialog - not a bunch of cowering reactionaries who do nothing but fear and obey."

...and an security intense area like an airplane is the correct place for this dialog?

Wear a pin alluding to blowing up planes onto a plane, expect to get detained

Oh come on, the pin in no way alluded to blowing up planes - it was about being treated like a suspected terrorist and the futility of many invasive security measures.

While it's true that flight crews have a right to make decisions "for their safety and the safety and comfort of their passengers" there was *nothing unsafe* going on here. What was it? Some folks were somehow "spooked?" Please. What we need in this country is more open dialog - not a bunch of cowering reactionaries who do nothing but fear and obey.

"I can't imagine anyone taking an international flight from SFO to London would have been alarmed and would be sophisticated enough to recognise the badge-wearing for what it was: a harmless bit of political protest and civil disobedience. "

Why? The simple phrase "Suspected Terrorists" isn't very explanatory.

Should the crew have sat down with him and had a discussion to determine that he is indeed harmless and the badge is merely a bit of protest? Would anyone else on the flight take adversley to the pin if they saw it? Would there be panic? There are two many variables for the crew to accept his explanation and simply say "fair enough".

Edited by author 07-21-2003 04:49 PM
"Will I soon not be able to board a BA flight wearing a Sex Pistols T shirt showing the Queen being shot?"

Wear that to the coronation and see how far you get. Wear a shirt depicting killing the queen to a coronation and expect to get detained. Wear a pin alluding to blowing up planes onto a plane, expect to get detained. If either shock you, perhaps you need to rethink your career as a full-time protestor.

"Where will it end and who decides?"

Back to the slippery-slope argument. It's a logical fallacy that can be used in EITHER direction. If the pilot couldn't remove him, what next? People boarding planes carrying signs saying "I HAVE A BOMB!" or "I plan on trying to highjack this flight!"?

Flight crews need to be able to make a gut call, for their safety and the safety and comfort of their passengers. Someone dumb (or demented) enough to wear a "Suspected Terrorist" button on an International flight SHOULD be scrutinized. When asked to remove it, he SHOULD remove it. If someone won't remove a simple button when asked, you have to wonder about their mental state. When someone won't turn on their laptop when asked at a security checkpoint (like Gilmore did a few months back), you should treat him as a suspicious figure.

After all, if you walk on a flight declaring yourself to be a "Suspected Terrorist", don't become incredulous when people treat you like one.

Chico, on trains they are called "conductors" but still retain the same final say as captains of other vessels...

LG: Train captains?

The way I read it, Gilmore had the pin on all along - though it's not clear:

"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."

One problem is that airport security and Airlines' policies are two different animals. The security is run by the government (contracted out to private companies, I believe?) The Airlines, however, are free to institute additional policies. Ideally, there should be some co-ordination, so a screener at the gate could say: "you're flying BA - they're not going to allow you to wear that pin", or something like that. And the gate crew should spot such things. Gilmore mentions that the pin was only 1" diameter - I doubt anyone even noticed it until the steward got his panties in a wad.

I can't see whose interests were served by turning the plane around and delaying the flight. It didn't seem to help the airline, the other passengers, or Gilmore. As for "safety concerns" - what safety, really, is threatened by a 1" badge? Gilmore seemed very open to explaining his message to any passenger who may have been alarmed or interested in any way. I can't imagine anyone taking an international flight from SFO to London would have been alarmed and would be sophisticated enough to recognise the badge-wearing for what it was: a harmless bit of political protest and civil disobedience. Were I on the flight, I wouldn't be upset with BA just for delaying us - but for insulting my intelligence by assuming I was a moronic reactionary veiled in the culture of fear, as well.

But it was BA's call. They offered to put him on the next flight if he removed it, and he chose not to. It's an economic decision. Gilmore can choose not to fly BA in the future and try his luck at wearing the pin on another airline.

Another important detail is the crew was not enforcing a BA policy per se, but they were making the decision to take action on this "safety issue"(which I assume they are empowered to do under Airline policy.) It shall be interesting to see if this results in a new uniformly-applied official BA policy. Will they start placing warning notices, or having gate crews giving warnings that clothing or accessories bearing "inappropriate language" will be forbidden? Will I soon not be able to board a BA flight wearing a Sex Pistols T shirt showing the Queen being shot? Where will it end and who decides?

Here's a question for you all:

If Gilmore was trying to make a point, why didn't he wear a badge or shirt saying "I was treated like a suspected terrorist", but instead just said "Suspected terrorist"?

He KNEW he was going to get in trouble. His "statement" wasn't the badge, as he will claim, it was getting in trouble, and the badge was a means to that end.

If the badge was his statement, he could have made his statement 100X clearer. He was trolling for an event he could SUE over.

Edited by author 07-21-2003 04:31 PM
"Why can't we ask crew to be able to differentiate uncomfortable truths from threats?"

Trying to ascertain whether someone is of a sound mind and may create a disturbance is completely different situation than identifying a concrete object like an insect or animal.

The crew and pilot should not be responisible for trying to sort out whether Gilmore is making a valid political point or is a nut.

"Does it worry others that flight crew are allowed to act on every nervous feeling? To me this means they aren't being asked to differentiate between real and imaginary dangers, or threats to their pride versus real threats. This makes us less safe. "

The "slippery slope" argument, but I don't buy it. Saying "Hey!! I'm a Suspected Terrorist!!" as you go through security will get you detained, so why should it be OK then to do it once you are on the plane?

Captains have always been given WIDE lattitude on their ships, be they boats, trains or airplanes, and they have always been free to make these judgement calls.

Furthermore, they don't have to feel threatened. If I get on a plane after rolling in manure, they can boot me off the plane as it makes the trip uncomfortable for the other 200 passengers. Passengers may have been (as I would have been) talking about kicking his ASS for wearing the pin, and the captain did it for Gilmore's safety as much as anyones.

Finally, airlines are private companies. As such they have the right to refuse service based on anything that doesn't violate someone's civil rights. You may have the "right" to label yourself a terrorist (no matter how cleverly you try to loophole out of it by saying "suspected") and get on a plane, and the airline has the right to boot you right off of it, even if they don't REALLY think you are one.

"I've seen a few examples here along the lines of what if a button said "Potential rapist" or "Possible murderer." These have entirely different meanings than "Suspected..." Potential is what you might do. Suspected describes how authorities view you. I am never going to be a potential drunk driver, because I don't drink and drive. I am a suspected drunk driver when police stop everyone on a road to search for drunk drivers."

Exactly the type of bonehead defense he's going to use. How about I modify my example to make it better for you:

I'm going to your child's daycare center wearing a badge that says "Alleged Pedophile Rapist".

Is that better? If you saw a guy wearing that, would YOU want him around your child? I sure hope not! So why would you want someone labelled "suspected terrorist" on your flight? My life is too important to me to play Gilmore's silly games.

Comments and questions:

Does it worry others that flight crew are allowed to act on every nervous feeling? To me this means they aren't being asked to differentiate between real and imaginary dangers, or threats to their pride versus real threats. This makes us less safe.

As an analogy: which makes you safer- a walking tour guide who freaks out at every insect (or snake), or one who can differentiate between the safe and the poisonous ones? A security guard who gets nervous about every poor looking person, or one who knows actually suspicious behavior?

In what way are passengers safer, for example, if the crew can call F16s out to escort a plane because a darker-skinned family is chatting in a foreign language as they point out landmarks below? (as happened to the Indian actress Samyuktha Verma and family) If I found out that my plane was a trigger finger away from being blown out of the sky because the crew couldn't ask "Hey, first time visiting our city? Where are you from?" I'd be angry. Especially because if blondes were chatting in an obscure European language thats exactly what would happen: the crew would ask, the chatters would answer, no F-16s called.

Why can't we ask crew to be able to differentiate uncomfortable truths from threats?

In what way were passengers safer when that person was thrown off for stating a truth like "I hope the pilots are sober" right after that airline had a drunk-pilot situation? If the passenger had given a threat like "I've spiked the pilot's coffee with whiskey" or "I'm a fighting mean drunk and I've just had 4 shots of whiskey" then as a threat she should be removed (and the threat investigated).

I've seen a few examples here along the lines of what if a button said "Potential rapist" or "Possible murderer." These have entirely different meanings than "Suspected..." Potential is what you might do. Suspected describes how authorities view you. I am never going to be a potential drunk driver, because I don't drink and drive. I am a suspected drunk driver when police stop everyone on a road to search for drunk drivers.

Dunno, LOTC, but if he had the pin on from the time he entered the airport and noone said anything then that's a poor oversight on the part of the ticketing agents, security, etc.

Gilmore was obviously protesting the fact that he was asked to turn on his laptop at a security checkpoint a few months back (as is requested for ALL of us, from well before 9/11) and refused and was cuffed for it. He figured it would be cute to label himself as a "Suspected Terrorist" because he was so visciously harassed for not turning on his laptop.

I don't like people being "cute" with MY time. I hope the other travellers sue for their lost time and missed connections.

I despise people that take their own pleasure in making other people feel uncomfortable.

(/m138) Basically, I think it could have been either way. If he hid the pin, than I blame him for the delay, otherwise, I blame the company. Knowing Gilmore's history, and the reputation of the airline companies, I guess we'll never know unless we try ourselves :) (don't worry, I won't).

Wow, so much here it seems dangerous to wade in. I have my
opinions on this, and I see some here that I agree with and
some that I disagree with. I suspect people who know me will
know where I stand.

It is pretty amazing to see some of the things written here
though, and certainly amazing to see the quantity of it. Who
hauled out the rent-a-mob on this issue?

So you think he was wearing the pin all the way through security and onto the plane? I must have missed that point, because it seemed to me he slapped on the pin after he took his seat.

This proves one thing:

If you want to get thrown of a plane badly enough, you can be. He wanted to get thrown off, and he was. Congrats Mr. Dumbass, you proved your...uh...nothing really, but congrats anyway!

Oh how I wish I'd seen this post earlier :) The only problem I see in this matter is the fact that Gilmore was accepted onto the plane in the first place. At each security checkpoint, they basically said to him "your pin/badge/statement is okay with us, you can board the plane".

For all of you that say that he didn't think about the 300+ other passengers I say that its not his fault. It's the company that let him on the plane in the first place that is to blame. "read the fine print" my ass. Where does it say "don't wear suspected terrorist pins?"

It does say that they can boot him off if they want to but, get this, they did and he complied. It caused a delay? That's certainly not his fault. He should have been informed a hell of a lot earlier than that. For all those who said that it was so obviously stupid to pull such a stunt, I'll gladly point to you the fact that it wasn't so obvious to all the security folks at all the previous checkpoints (unless of course, he was hidding the pin under his jacket untill he got on the plane). Feels like classic bait-and-switch to me.

This is a classic case of "blame the last man in the chain of events". Of course, ff he had complied, no delay would have been brought to the 300+ people on the plane ... but if the captain had not decided to ask him to remove the pin then there would have been no delay ... but if the security people would have ... etc, etc.

<rant>
I feel like if someone points a gun at stranger and tells me to kill my dog (or kid, or wife) or else he'll kill the stranger, that if I ever refuse to comply then the good folks at boingboing will accuse me of killing the stranger (sorry for the engrish) :p
</rant>

Edited by author 07-21-2003 03:35 PM
You have to weigh in the common good here. You just can't have 300 people on a plane using that closed environment as a platform for their political views. In a public place you have a right to make a statement and I have the right to walk away and call you an idiot or call the FBI or whatever.

On a plane, I don't have the opportunity to walk away from you if you threaten me in some way. If I consider this guy a threat I should have an opportunity to get away from him. On a plane he is taking away my freedom to stay away from left-wing nutcases.

So there have to be rules of decorum whereby we all agree not to threaten each other (even a little bit) in these captive environments. He broke the social pact of good, non-threatening behavior and suffered the consequences. Too bad his actions affected so many others negatively.

Edited by author 07-21-2003 03:34 PM
"Hey, the America of old. The one with free speech is dead. When you start making exceptions then it's over man."

No, it's not over, it's just changed because the protestors have changed.

How about on Dec. 8, 1941 boarding a flight from Honalulu wearing a button that says "Possible Japanese Kamakazi", how do you think the pilot would react? Would he boot him off the flight? I bet he would, and that's 60 years ago. The only difference is that 60 years ago people didn't have the BAD TASTE to pull a stunt like this, but now, obviously, they do.

Making a statement by making others fear for their safety is IDIOTIC, no matter what the era.

Furthermore, you talk about "Free Speech", which has very little bearing when dealing with private companies. You can still stand in a public square and shout "My boss is a moron!!!" all day long, but do that in your breakroom at work and you CAN and likely WILL be fired. You can speak freely, but free speech doesn't mean you are immune from the reprecussions of your speech, nor does it mean companys lose their right to refuse to serve you.

Again, Free Speech means that you have the LEGAL RIGHT to say something, but it does NOT mean that you are immune to the havoc your speech might cause. You might not be able to be arrested for calling your boss a moron, but you most certainly can be fired for it. They cannot arrest you for wearing a t-shirt to a 5-star restauraunt, but they can refuse to serve you. You may not be arrested for wearing an "I am a terrorist" pin, but the airline can certainly ask you to leave the plane if you insist on wearing it.

Don't go blaming the government for this one, this is a pilot making a decision that I support fully. If I was a passenger, I would have either stayed off the flight, or requested a seat right next to Gilmore so I could harass and annoy him maliciously for the entire flight (since, after all, he's likely making 200 other people nervous with his actions, the least I could do is return the favor).

Then again, Free Speech CAN be illegal if it incites a riot or endangers live, like shouting FIRE in a crowded theater. Therefore, I would have gathered a nice group together to beat the crap out of the guy. Sure, I would have gotten arrested for rioting, but he would have gotten arrested for inciting a riot, happens to flag burners all the time.

I'm not sure some of the people congratulating Gilmore on his actions are looking at the situation objectively.

If I'm the captain what the hell does a button reading "suspected terrorist" mean and why should I even give a shit about his "political statement"? I don't have time to question the person and ascertain whether or not he actually is a nutjob who may interfere with the crew. Or much more likely some other asshat taking exception to his o-so-subtle attempt at discourse and creating a problem. It's just not practical to spend the time trying to understand some eccentrics ideology when I have a job to do - regardless of whether or not I may agree with him.

I seriously doubt the captain thought he was a real terrorist but simply didn't want any potential hassles. It's not a matter of black / white or free-speech / censorship. It was just a pragmatic solution.

Edited by author 07-21-2003 02:22 PM
Hey, the America of old. The one with free speech is dead. When you start making exceptions then it's over man.
The overkill response to 9/11 was an obvious attempt the gut our rights and it worked.
Our intelligence branches just needed to get their sh!t together, not make all these bullsh!t laws.

To you people who are making excuses for the airlines actions. Welcome to your new AmeriKKA and watch what we get in the future.

Lovegravy's idea about dressing as the shoe bomber is great, maybe someone could create a mail order website for shobobmber costumes that you can wear to the airport? That would be funny, hundreds of shoebomber lookalikes protesting security measures mucking up the already severly screwed airline industry.

About this long thread:
To the guy who claimed I didn't know anything about New Yorks 'wonderful community' when I suggested Mr.Gilmore's pin would also not fly so well at ground zero; okay mr.smartypants prove it. You go get a shirt and print "suspected terrorist" on the front and take photos of yourself walking around the financial district for couple days and post them. I doubledawgdare you.

Then there was the guy who claimed Isreal has tough security that does not violate your rights. Please know your facts before you make a dumb statement like that. (As if Gilmore would not be tackled by more than a few baggage screeners and MPs at Ben Gurion International.) You just made it clear to everyone that you feel so strongly about your opinion that you will make things up.

In all seriousness kudos to boingboing for hosting this thread, and to the thinking posters on both sides. While I think Gilmore's actions were silly, I do think that healthy debate about security being balanced with respect to our individual rights is very important. I hope that we never see a repetition in the "name of security" of what happened to to 110,000 of our fellow Japanese Americans.

While drastic times sometimes call for drastic measures, the lack of debate is what I believe contributed to that tagedy. While we must endure some inconveneince and constraint during these times, fear and ignorance is never an excuse for treating citizens like "suspected terrorists". We must also balance this with a terrorist mindset that would exploit our freedoms to our own demise.

God bless America.

moof - interesting points in m/117 - any European lawyers in the hizzouze?

Would Gilmore have any standing under EU law? I doubt it – I don’t think there is any jurisdiction, but you raise some interesting, if purely academic questions.
The plane was flying the UK flag, but it was in US airspace. It’s clear that US law applies in US airspace, but would the fact that it was a vessel registered to a Member State matter at all? Of course, Gilmore has no standing as a citizen of the community. The Treaty does extend some rights to foreign visitors, but they are rather limited.

Is political speech impended by a private party considered a human rights violation that impedes freedom of movement or economic rights under the Treaty? I suppose yes, in some cases, but it would surely depend on the context. Even though I don’t think he could take his case before the EU High Court of Human Rights, I would be interested to hear how the arguments played out.

Imagine this scenario: a UK citizen boards a BA flight from London to Glasgow wearing a badge that says “IRA Terrorist.” What would his reception be among the security people at Heathrow? Pretty chilly, I’d imagine. But could they prevent him from flying?

Horizontal applicability and direct effect don’t really apply the same way under U.S. Constitutional Law. We have Civil Rights statutes that work in a similar way. So even though there is no Constitutional protection against discrimination on the basis of race or gender, the federal laws mean it can’t happen. Well, actually, people can try it if they want – but the statutes mean they will lose by default when they have their pants sued off in a civil trial. Unreasonable search and seizure is covered under the Bill of Rights – so it is part of the Constitution and the states can’t legislate around it. But it certainly has no horizontal applicability to private institutions. Your employer can search your office; kids in schools can have their lockers searched, etc.

States do have some laws protecting rights beyond the Constitution – but it’s really rare. About the only examples I can think of are some cities having laws against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in certain instances (do any states? I don’t think so) and the hate crime laws which dole out tougher punishment for certain crimes motivated by prejudice.

And don't miss the other "Gilmore Greatest Hits":

"When Gilmore opened his laptop for inspection by airport personnel at San Francisco International last month - as requested - but refused to turn the machine on, the cops were called. When he then refused to show identification to airport police, "they put the handcuffs on me and hauled me off," he told The Netizen. "

Wow, don't follow the rules and you get cuffed, BIG SHOCK.

This moron makes a career out of trying to get in trouble. He's hurting the cause a LOT more than helping it.

If I was on that plane and he was allowed to board, I would probably have gotten off (and I probably wouldn't have been the only person leaving).

What a jack-ass.

Edited by author 07-21-2003 12:29 PM
Furthermore, I hope the other 300 passengers file civil charges against Gilmore for the inconveniences he caused. By causing 300 people to miss connections, etc. he left himself wide open for it.

And I hope the airline does the same, charging him for the spent fuel, lost passengers, etc.

When someone's "political statement" causes me to miss my connecting flight, I'd be making my counterpoint in court.

If Gilmore, or anyone, walked up to a Fedex or UPS counter with a package labeled "Suspected Explosive," should he reasonably expect the carrier to accept and transport it? I think not.

It's also quite possible the captain of the BA flight, who is ultimately responsible for passenger and crew safety, was concerned about the potential for an altercation in the cabin during flight instigated either by Gilmore or by another passenger (perhaps alcohol induced) because of Gilmore's provocation. Stranger things have happened aboard commercial flights.

Maybe Gilmore should start usng his employer's email system to send some offensive, but perfectly legal, mesaages to his coworkers and see how much free speech means in the workplace.

Having said all this, we must also acknowledge that Gilmore was not arrested or harmed in any way for expressing his views. His right to free speech was respected. But as wtih any protest, there are limits on time and place. He was not standing on a street corner or in a public park. Am I missing something, or did the system work the way it is supposed to?

I'm going to a private daycare and put on a pin that says "Potential Pedophile Rapist" and go mingle with the kids.

Should the daycare center allow me in there? After all, if I'm wearing a pin PROFESSING my status as a potentially harmful person, should they let me stay? If no, what's the difference? If yes, let me know if you have kids and where they go to daycare....

Edited by author 07-21-2003 11:55 AM
"IF he had removed the button, he would have been allowed to fly. This is NOT at all like joking about bombs. When you joke about a bomb, the security people don't say; "we'll let you through.. IF you take it back". Basically, Gilmore was being told what to think."

I simply disagree. Can Gilmore NOT think that if he doesn't wear the button? Sure he can. He's not being told what to THINK, he's being told what to WEAR, which is well within the airline's rights to dictate.

What if he dressed up, and was made up, to look EXACTLY like the shoebomber? Would that be OK? Should the airline allow one person's "statement" make the other 200 passengers uncomfortable? He wore the pin to get kicked off, and he succeeded. The statement wasn't the pin, he WANTED to be removed, so why is everyone shocked when he was?

Don't like the airline's policy, pick another airline. The airline has the right to eject him, and they exercised that right. As long as the airline is a private company, they can do that all day long. Heck, they can mandate Tuxedos for their flights if they want, and if you don't have one, they are well within their rights to boot you off the plane.

Gilmore showed up with his cute little button to make a stink, and he got what he wanted. He was told to remove it or get off the plane, so he chose to be removed. My remorse level for him is ZERO.

Show up at a 5 star restauraunt without a tie and see what happens. Private companies can make rules about conduct and dress on their own private property. They couldn't kick him out of the airport, but the airline doesn't have to let him stay on their plane.

Gilmore wanted to get booted and was successful. Congrats, asshat, you are teh winnar!!!

Gilmore's done the airlines. Time to pin on his White Power button and walk around Hunter's Point.

So you got to be right, instead of happy...Right Right Right..I would rather be happy jerk off..

i'm deleting all messages i don't like! yes, i have the key. you want censorship, you got it kiddies!

Read carefully folks..
IF he had removed the button, he would have been allowed to fly. This is NOT at all like joking about bombs. When you joke about a bomb, the security people don't say; "we'll let you through.. IF you take it back". Basically, Gilmore was being told what to think.

Also captains aren't magically some kind of dictator aboard their ships or airplanes; they only get certain privileges in international waters/skies.

Even then this is not at all clear cut. For example, you must follow any police officers instructions without delay. You can't even ignore instructions if they infringe your rights. But cops that exceed their authority ARE liable for their actions. The same goes for captains and airlines. They may have privileges to throw you off board, but if they do so for the wrong reasons, they will get in trouble afterwards.

Finally, the consitutional matter. First off all; all EU countries are party to the European Convention on Human Rights, and varies treaties such as the European Treaty on Political an Civil Rights. Furthermore, all EU countries (except the UK) have a Constitution which also mentions human and civil rights, as well as laws implementing EU, EC and Council of Europe directives and conventions. All in all there is a boatload of human and civil rights legislation and jurisprudence over here; and indeed more protection to be had, compared to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Now for the US situation; just because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only mention what Congress may and may not legislate, it does not mean that private parties, even private companies may infringe your human and civil rights. First off, all rights not enumerated in the Constitution remain with the people and the States respectively. Secondly, there is a legal concept which is called horizontal applicability, as opposed to direct effect. This basically means that if the government is enjoined from behavior that infinges basic rights, these rights should also not be infringed upon by third parties (such as other citizens or companies). After all the intent of the Bill of Rights is to protect human and civil rights; it is evident that such rights deserve protection from third parties as well.

I'm sure individual States have implemented laws that implement the protection of civil and human rights from other parties than just the Federal Government. Otherwise, discriminating blacks or women would be just fine, as long as the Federal Government doesn't do it. Unreasonable search and seizure? Well, as long as Congress doesn't legislate in favor of it, anything else goes! Of course that stance is preposterous.

Back to the case at hand; did Gilmore's button pose a danger or impediment to the plane's operation? Would the buttons removal have magically removed such impediment? Of course not! The crew were being a bunch of petty cry babies who wouldn't know social and political comment if it bit them in the ass (or if it was pinned there). They clearly abused their power to oust someone whose *clothing* they could not comprehend. Is this a big deal? Well, Gilmore was being stubborn, but you have to question the sanity of the crew. Would refusing people dressed as hippies in the 60s have gone over well? Or punks in the seventies? (Remember, it's just a private company, so it's not a first amendment issue, no sirry!)

It is a sign of the times that people will gladly overreact to even the slightest disturbance of their conception of the world; after all, we must all support the President and the Government in these challenging times! Frankly, the crew were acting like mindless drones, not unlike many of the posters here. "Bad button! Bad man! Go home! I sleep save now!"

For Pete's sake people, if you can't be bothere to muster some independent critical thought of your own, at least leave others who DO have a brain and use it (perhaps even to dress oddly! SHOCK HORROR!) at peace.

To me, this is akin to joking about "The gun I have in my sock" as you go through screening.

I'm sure the other passengers on the plane were not amused. I bet MANY of them thought the passenger was forced to wear the badge by the airline or something, as a way of keeping tabs on suspected terrorists (not everone on most flights are the brightest bulbs...).

"Free Speech" is overridden by the right of a private company to refuse service to ANY passenger they want. Just as a casino can eject a patron that's winning too much, an airline can eject a patron that they feel is undesirable, as long as they do not do it based on something that violates their civil rights. "Being an Asshat" is a perfectly good reason to refuse service, and someone's "free speech" rights dissappear once they agree to a private company's terms.

Act like a dumbass, get booted off the plane. Dude deserved it.

Yes, I was looking at it from a legal standpoint(attorney here.)

Not sure about the phone company example - there would be a lot of factors there (it's an essential service, heavily regulated by the government, perhaps a religious discrimination argument if they didn't like cursing, etc.) Another example is the "super-patriotic" diner owner who refuses to serve the long-haired hippies wearing peace buttons. I agree that would be wrong from a humanist/tolerance standpoint, but it would be perfectly legal.

The correct response, of course, would be for the peace activists to use their economic power and boycott the diner, and use the power of the media to publicise a boycott.

The whole situation sounds so bizarre. It sounds as if the captain confronted him with a threat - and then turned the plane around without Gilmore realising that would be the consequence beforehand. The more rational reaction would have been for the captain to say
"I understand you have strong feelings about this, but if you don't take the button off, we're going to turn the plane around and you will delay all the other passengers from reaching London on time."

That would have least given Gilmore a chance to weigh his right of expression against the rights of the other passengers. He seems an intelligent and empathetic person. LIke you say, I doubt he expected the result, and such a discussion would have still allowed him the choice to take it off and write about the incident later without inconveniencing everyone else.

He could have called for a boycott of the airline, and the press would play much more sympathetic toward him.
It's strange that the captain said he would be committing a "federal crime" if he didn't take it off, yet apparently there were no U.S. Marshals waiting to arrest Gilmore upon coming back to SFO. A decision was made somewhere to handle it peacefully (unlike Peter Buck's arrest after being drunk and disorderly on a BA flight last year.)

Heck, BA even offered to put him on the next flight if he didn't wear the button! Even though turning the flight back seems like an overreaction, it does appear BA handled the whole thing with exemplary politeness, tact, and sensitivity.

He mentions suing the government over the Federal regulation that you have to show an ID now to fly - but that is a completely different matter.

I applaud activism, but this situation seems to have spiralled out of control on both sides. It will indeed be interesting to see if Gilmore mow ends up on the "no fly" list, and if he will launch a legal challenge to that.

Note: he writes "(they called it a "badge")" - with some implication that they were challenging his politics more by using that term. However, "badge" is the common name in the UK for what Americans call a "button" or "pin" of this type.

Six - some good points, but...

   "no one acting in capacity of the state or on the authority of the state was trying to censor his speech."

Right, but that hardly matters. Practically, it's still a restriction of speech, even when it's not "the state" doing it. Legally I don't know, but I doubt the phone co. would be allowed to prohibit people from uttering naughty words on their lines, for example. Gilmore also mentions a court precedent that might well apply. So I wouldn't presume that the answer is obvious wrt the law.

Also, I don't think it reasonable to say that Gilmore chose an unreasonable way to make his point. I don't think he would have expected all that to happen - I certainly wouldn't have. More likely he just wanted people on the plane to see the button and be forced to think a little. Once they did confront him, he handled it in the only way possible.

I've skimmed the 100+ comments here, but obviously may have missed a few points.
Basically -

1. There is no "free speech" argument that applies. He was a passenger on a common carrier that is a private company (not even a US company), and no one acting in capacity of the state or on the authority of the state was trying to censor his speech. This was a private common courier enforcing a policy.

2. Private institutions are bound by certain Civil Rights laws from discriminating in some instances based on certain characteristics - namely race, religion, ethnicity, gender. Political expression or affiliation within the context of a private company's facilities is not protected under Civil rights Laws.

3. I am about as strong a free speech supporter as you will find. However, his challenge about what type of speech would be acceptable to BA is completely irrelevant. He was not in a government building, or being prevented protest on a public street by a state agent.

4. His stance, or whatever "rights" he felt he should have in this situation are without merit. I would imagine he was in violation of contract law (if one read the fine print of the ticket, he was in violation of international law (it was the captain's call under international transportation agreements), and he was in violation of common sense.

5. It was probably stupid of the captain to turn the plane around. This seems like turning a molehill into a mountain and made things a much bigger deal than they had to be. I'm surprised that BA would inconvenience 300 other paying passengers this way over something so trivial. No one even noticed the button. The flight crew could have at least had the passengers vote - I bet no one on that flight would have voted for turning back.

6. The above doesn't mean Gillmore was right, it just means BA was also kind of stupid.

7. Some mentioned that airlines may receive Federal funding, but this is a weak argument. the funding is not direct (as with private universities) - facilities and such necessary for public transportation are not the same as funding.

8. The real challenge would have been to wear the button into a Federal Building or facility - then challenge an eviction. From what I read, Gilmore is protesting US Government/FAA/Homeland Security policies, not those of individual airlines. I agree with his politics, but his argument here is a straw man. This is unfortunate, because some policies do need to be challenged - but in this case there were 300 innocent victims - and it wasn't even a very good way to make his point.

I guess I can understand why you are pissed at me.

>...I'M gonna start asking for the forums to be cut off.

>...I would have beat the hell out of the "patrons" if they hadn't complied.

It seems to be very important for you to shut down those people that you disagree with.

What are you afraid of? What exactly is going to happen if these "punks", "retards", "stupid people" or college students speak their mind?

Is it just because, as you say, they "force their annoying presence" on you? Does that allow me censor you for being annoying?

In my opinion this is why uncomprimised free speech is so important, to insure that individuals can have their say, even if someone else finds it bothersome.

>Don't respond with your smug little insulting bullshit.
>You want to see a punk, look in the mirror.

I'm not sure how I feel about "metrosexual", but I'm glad that you can demonstrate the correct way to avoid personal attacks.

-milo

Scott Mcnay, /m108:

I'm not pissed off at you, so don't take this comment the wrong way. (I am pissed at "Milo the Metrosexual," though.)

I think that wearing a large Star of David badge and/or an "I don't support Bushitler" badge (kudos to whomever thought of that name) would have gotten a point across just as well.

The whole point of that little story was that I don't put up with "statements" of any kind where I work. At other places (yes, constantly), I do have to put up with it. It's either put up with it or go to jail. At work, though, surrounded by like-minded lunatics, there are no political statements and nobody ever tries to whine about how different they are.

Think Fight Club meets Kitchen Confidential meets Goodfellas. Or, just go outside and try to look for yourself at reality. (College campuses do not count.)

The point in singling out the Support Our Troops incident was to make it clear that I'm not a conservative.

Edited by author 07-20-2003 08:22 PM
I don't think freedom of speech was ever the main subject in this issue. It was just brought out because he (gillmore) thought he had the right to 'say' (show) that expression in a plane. I'm not discussing the content of the phrase or if it is offensive or not (some might find it offensive, some might not). I think the main issue here is to give the general public the real conscience of what governments (not just in US, but mostly there) are doing in the name of security, specialy on airplanes (like terrorist couldn't get other ways to inflict damage on inocents...) and airports.

Saying this, I wouldn't think a good ideia to use that badge on the groundzero nor in any other places but airports and planes (perhaps some other places, too...) because the problem here is not with terrorism nor with the vitims of it, the problem here is the withdrawal of constitutional and Human rights because a event. As important and negative as the event may be we cannot forget about what