"It's like yelling "There is the posibility that a fire might start" in a crowded theater."

No, it's like wearing a button saying "Suspected Arsonist" into a movie theater.

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?

Sigh. It's not just A button. It's a button specifically meant to provoke and threaten the flight crew. At the very least, it indicates someone spoiling for a fight. One wonders what might have happened had Gilmore gone unnoticed until the flight was in the air. What sort of resistance would he have given then? I can only imagine the melee as the air marshals arrested him for disobeying the orders of the captain, while he shouted, "See the VIOLENCE inherent in the SYSTEM!"

I consider myself a pretty rabid free speech advocate, but this was a poorly chosen tactic in a poorly chosen battle. Contrary to Gilmore's assertions ("I declined, saying that it was a political statement and that he had no right to censor passengers' political speech,"), you don't have free speech rights on an airplane. Period. This was a pointless exercise in stupidity.

Meanwhile, those who find themselves on the DO NOT FLY list have no way of finding out why they are on it, or who put them there. They have no way of voting out of power someone who abuses their ability to put people on the list. This is a chilling situation, and worth fighting to change. I wish he'd tried a stunt that brought attention to this situation. But fighting for the right to wear your "Suspected Terrorist" pin on an airplane? I've known high-schoolers smarter than that.

My Take:
Because there has been much abuse to the freedoms of US citizens, Mr.Gilmore chose to wear a button that he felt made a political statement. It was a bad choice.

The crew of airship saw the button as a threat and disregard for safetey. I don't think they cared about Mr.Gilmore's politic.

Because Mr.Gilmore was more concerned about his own freedom to do which he pleases he chose not to simply remove the button while in flight. (Like it would have killed him.) It too was a bad choice.

A pilot of an aircraft carrying 300 people doesn't care about rights to free speech. Infact I would wager he goes through zero training concerning respecting "passenger speech rights". Nor SHOULD HE.

Rosa Parks refuses to go to the back of the bus. Good choice. She disobeyed a sign that infringed on her constitutional right as an American citizen.

Dan Gilmore refuses to remove stupid pin. Bad choice. He chose without regard to the consequencees to express his opinion. Proving what?

Those of you who feel angry about being "suspected terrorists" get over it. I can't wear a ski mask into a bank or I would be a "suspected robber", do I cry in my beer over lost freedom of speech? No, because I need to bank.

Turning an act of war through terrorist activity like the merciless killing of 3000 innocents into a big civil rights issue is nonesense. I dare Mr.Gilmore to wear his dumb little pin and galavant around ground zero, he would get more than just a few boots up his rear, do ya' think? Because really wearing a shirt or a pin that says "suspected terrorist" isn't much of a statement over free speech. If anything it suggests you indirectly support terrorism by insubordinating those who are trying to protect us from it.

I think it would be funny if liberals started wearing "suspected terrorist" T's, hats, and pins. Why not take it another step and replace "suspected terrorist" with "Usama Bin Ladin"? I could see many doing that thinking they are being really radical activists, when they would be really what Mr.Gilmore's actions were...lame.

Brian Carnell "No, it's like wearing a button saying "Suspected Arsonist" into a movie theater."

No it's like wearing "Suspected child molester" into a crowded daycare.

Please. Re-read Matthew Sturges's message here. Only the hysterical would believe an actual terrorist in this circumstance would wear a button announcing his intentions. And the bottom line is: it's free speech, it *is* a constitutional right. It's not speech that poses an actual danger to others' welfare, as in the yelling fire in a theater example. Free speech isn't something we can afford to split hairs about. Unless it's all free, none of it is.

Maybe they just didn't want him to poke somebody with it?

Freedom of speech only applies to the government censoring individuals. Businesses have every right to censor people who are making use of their facilities. "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone," etc.

what a dumbass.. what did he expect..