| Who | When |
Messages | |
|
|
|
| Jim Katta
|
32
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 11:44 AM ET (US)
|
|
And to answer Rusty Brooks comment re: blacks and jews. I'm a black man, and if a white guy was on the plane with a shirt saying "kill the negroes, word to ya mother!" or something like that, yes I would be very offended. but I would probably just have to eat it and endure the flight shooting him mean looks or just trying to ignore him all together. but being offended by someone's "point of view" on an airplane is not the same as being concerned by someone self-identifying (albeit dubiously) as a suspected terrorist. Wrong joke in the wrong place; if you don't see that, then you won't ever get why most of the people on this board disagree with Gilmore's actions.
|
Rusty Brooks
|
33
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 11:45 AM ET (US)
|
|
OK. I went back and re-read the email.
Nowhere does it say that the Captain or flight crew were nade nervous by the button. This is of course written in Gilmore's words, but you guys have no more to go on in this respect than I.
What was said is that some theoretical person might become nervous or be made nervous by the button. In other words, they were censoring him for the *potential* harm that his button might cause.
I understand the desire to censor speech and actions that you find offensive. I understand the desire to censor speech and actions that someone you know, have seen or heard of might object to.
But censoring speech or actions that you think might cause someone (who is not you, someone you know, or someone present) discomfort is... weird. I don't get it.
Almost everything is potentially offensive to someone.
|
| max cohen
|
34
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 11:45 AM ET (US)
|
|
All John Gilmore managed to do was delay and anger 300 passengers who probably had schedules to meet, and who will now look upon his causes or any related causes with less than open minds. Thanks a lot John. This ranks right up there with throwing red paint on people wearing fur coats.
|
Rusty Brooks
|
35
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 11:48 AM ET (US)
|
|
/m32 Jim Katta: I have good news for you. Under BA's rules you can have him thrown off the plane. Or, he can have you thrown off the plane. Maybe, because of the anguish the tension between the two of you causes, you should both be thrown off for my well being. And everyone here will agree that this is all well and good, because after all it abides by British Airlines Rule #2.
|
| E. Naeher
|
36
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 11:57 AM ET (US)
|
|
The 'private company' spiel won't wash here. Airlines which get federal law enforcement on their planes (when am I going to get a federal marshal to guard my apartment?) and use airports constructed with government money and receive billions in federal subsidies are about as private as Halliburton.
That aside, the funniest part of this post was the following:
"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(!)."
A lot of things make people uncomfortable. "God Bless America" stickers make me uncomfortable; I deal with it. It's not that hard.
|
ernie
|
37
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 12:00 PM ET (US)
|
|
Everyone knows if you joke about bombs when waiting to board the plane, you get the works. If John wore a T-shirt that said "suspected terrorist" on it in large letters, I think it would be easy to see that is equivalent to a bomb joke in the airport context. So then the pin is ok because the letters are tiny? I don't think so.
|
| emmillie
|
38
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 12:09 PM ET (US)
|
|
Is the button link broken, or did they remove it from their website??
|
johan
|
39
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 12:18 PM ET (US)
|
|
And I get nervous around blondes. Especially with big boobies. (this was turning into Fark, no?).
So I can have them thrown off the plane? Cool!
|
Jeff Suttor
|
40
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 12:20 PM ET (US)
|
|
as we are all now "suspected terrorists", John's actions are appropriate. also remember that suspected terrorists do not have any rights and many bad things are happening to many good people.
I am currently traveling. on the outbound flight, my checked luggage was massively TSA'd. and what was of the most interest to them? three t-shirts that had words on them encouraging people to value free thought and that it's OK to buy bandwidth and give it away to your local community. also my Swiss army knife was stolen and my Calvins were abused.
so, I am going to have my own button made and will be wearing it on the return flight. after all, it's only the truth. I am a suspected terrorist.
|
rrsafety
|
41
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 12:24 PM ET (US)
|
|
Naeher, I have no doubt that you are the kind of person who is made uncomfortable by the phrase "God Bless American", no doubt at all.
|
Matthew Sturges
|
42
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 12:27 PM ET (US)
|
|
Excuse me, but are you people out of your fucking minds?
Does anyone think for a moment that an actual terrorist would wear a button that said, "Suspected Terrorist?" In other words, how on earth does the wearing of a button constitute a threat of any kind? This is absolutely nothing like shouting "fire" in a movie theater. That analogy is used to demonstrate that we may abridge one's freedom only to the extent that it causes harm to others. The button is not a threat, or even a joke; it is a dire political sentiment that is borne out by all of you yahoos who seem to think that free speech is a privilege that can be abrogated whenever convenient, and then easily restored when inocuous. America was founded on the the principle that freedom of speech is a natural human right, and therefore only to be shackled in the most dire of circumstances. You relinquish it at your own peril.
|
| Happy Engineer
|
43
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 12:30 PM ET (US)
|
|
Legal or not, protected speech or not, the airline's actions here are ridiculous. You have to be a brain donor to be frightened by such a button. The security screeners didn't have a problem with it, so for me, that negates the "joking about bombing" argument.
For those slamming Gilmore, I guess you want to live in the kind of world where reason counts for nothing. Have a ball, but in my opinion, the airline is responsible for delaying those passengers, not Gilmore. Go watch Fox news or something.
|
dalke
|
44
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 12:30 PM ET (US)
|
|
This isn't like yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's more like wearing a button that says "I like fire" in a crowded theater. Actually, that's too strong, since there are some people who don't like fire. It's more like wearing a button that says "I can yell" in a crowded theater. Just about everyone can yell, and just about everyone is a suspected terrorist on a plane.
It isn't like wearing a shirt that says "kill the negroes, word to ya mother!". It's much closer to wearing a shirt that says "I may be racist."
The thing to remember is that Gilmore's button is exactly correct. He, every passenger on the plane, and even the crew, are suspected terrorists just by being on the plane. Was the button telling a falsehood? No.
However, I can say that, but then suppose he was wearing a button which said "I might be carrying a bomb." My argument above equally allows that, because it's true - he might be carrying a bomb and managed to sneak it through the security. (Not too hard, if what I've heard about the poor quality of airline security is correct.)
Perhaps the difference is between 'something you are' and 'something you have'? Hmm... Is there any button/ t-shirt/ etc. which should not allowed? If so, can it be made legal by adding a "may be" to it? "The theater may be on fire!"
Well, the bomb one in theory may not be allowed because of specific regulations against that type of speech. And it may not be allowed because in theory, after the inspection, it's no longer a 'may be'. While the terrorist one is always true on the plane. That's why I can't queue up at the front bathroom, after all. Err, not quite. I could be a highjacker who is not a terrorist.
Guess I've got something to think about for the next while.
|
| DM-Terra
|
45
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 12:37 PM ET (US)
|
|
My 2 cents? This makes lots of sense without making any. The "Reason" story seems fallacitical(no idea if thats a real word) to say the least. I can understand the captain worrying. I can understand Mr. Gilmore's reasons. I can understand the first decision. Do I like it? you've got to be kidding. The captains case is that there may be some paranoid people or staff members (or maybe the captain himself) who would believe the button. Gilmore's case is that he has a right to express disgust about the world we live in. I frankly can't understand the reason he can't wear an oppose terrorism button though. The full story doesn't seem to add up to me.
|
nixomatos
|
46
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 12:42 PM ET (US)
|
|
It's like yelling "There is the posibility that a fire might start" in a crowded theater.
|
| wiseanduncanny
|
47
|
 |
|
07-19-2003 12:44 PM ET (US)
|
|
Um, wait, it's bad if the pervasive "blessing" of our country by a fictional deity makes me uncomfortable?
For fuck's sake, it's an ugly, horrible song, too. I hope I never have to see that NY Firefighter guy sing it at a sporting event ever again. It's an affront to anyone with a semblance of taste.
--sean
|