Yeah, I would be ok with it. Because I'm reasonable enough to recognize satire and separate it from actions that ACTUALLY threaten lives.
I would MUCH rather be free than "safe".

i think this is about the rudest thing i read today. i hate people like this. sorry, grandma, you're going to miss your connecting flight to see your grandson on his birthday, cuz i must wear this pin, which isn't really funny, more creepy and a little disconcerting to somebody, like me, who lives in new york.

but there will always be selfish people, now won't there?

John Durham wrote:
"The folks who keep comparing this to yelling 'fire' in a theater or making jokes about bombs are NOT getting the point. He did no such thing. He wore a button that expressed an opinion. He passed the security screeners"

But it wouldn't be obvious to anyone who isn't a reader of Reason Magazine that this was an expression of a political opinion rather than a button claiming that he, himself, was a terrorist. If the button said "Terrorist" rather than "Suspected Terrorist" would you be OK with it? What if he wore a satirical T-shirt that just said, "Suicide Bomber"? How are either of these cases different from the button that he actually wore?

Gilmore wasn't denied passage because he had the button; he was denied passage because he refused to take it off. Important difference.

The folks who keep comparing this to yelling "fire" in a theater or making jokes about bombs are NOT getting the point. He did no such thing. He wore a button that expressed an opinion. He passed the security screeners, He was NOT stating he was going to hijack the plane, or do anything of the sort. It's a pretty clear cut free speech case.
I don't have a problem with being patted down, screened and my luggage being searched when getting on an airplane. I don't like it, but it is an unfortunate neccessity due to a tiny amount of nutjobs who want to kill people to further their agendas.
I DO have a problem with censorship because someone is offended or miffed or just doesn't agree with someone's viewpoint.
Mr. Gilmore was NOT advocating terrorism or violence. He was expressing how he felt. For that he should not have been singled out.

I think he was thrown off for pointing out an uncomfortable reality. He (or any of us) would also have been kicked out if he'd worn other buttons or had a paper or book with the title of

"Multiple searches don't add to security" or
"If you are uncomfortable with me you can kick me off"
"Reinforced cockpit doors could have stopped 9/11"
"The illusion of security isn't security"
"10 million people on a watch list = no good watch list" or
"Pilots should be sober while flying"(*)
"Hi, my name is David Nelson"(**)
"I read the Koran" (***)
"The Monkeywrench Gang" (****)
 
And I doubt that even if he'd taken off the button they'd let him stay on the plane. The flight attendants would have seethed for a few more minutes on "how dare he make us uncomfortable with the truth" and would have asked the captain to turn around anyways.

We travelers put up with ever increasing searches and other security measures without even demanding a cost-benefit analysis, let alone proof that any measure actually improves security. We no longer need that cliched and provably false proverb of 'the frog in hot water'... it can be replaced with the provably true 'the traveler in the airport'.

(*)Remember the woman thrown off of an airplane for asking if the pilots were sober? This immediately after news reports of two pilots *in the same airline* who had almost flown drunk.

(**)You know about David Nelson? Because One David Nelson is on the watch list, all 5,500 David Nelsons get searched multiple times and have to be cleared by an FBI representative each and every time they fly. Ozzie and Harriet's son, the Washington state senator, young and old, black and white. Each and every time they go through security. Makes you feel safer, no?

(***) Not a button, but someone was escorted from a flight because he was reading a book about Islam.

(****) Someone was prevented from flying because security noticed he was reading this book.

1) BA was within their rights

2) So was Gilmore

3) BA's rights trump Gilmores

4) The fact that this situation is serious as opposed to farcical is _very_ dangerous. One would expect a more advanced body politic to assume
    A) Wearing a button like that might get you heavily screened, but if you're on the plane, WTF
    B) Your ability to look like a fool in the eyes of your fellow man is an inalienable right.
    C) Phrases on buttons don't harm people directly, only the pins on the back of them.

If I'd been on that plane, I'd of been annoyed with Gilmore, but I'd also have followed him right off the plane and rebooked with another carrier. If BA will do this, they're certainly not a carrier I'll ever use again. They seem to have gone out of their way to make a mountain out of a crater. It's not that I support Gilmore as much as I support myself as a customer. It was stupid, it should have been called stupid, and about the strongest possible comment to Gilmore could have been "grow the f* up"

That said, I agree with the man on one point. John Ashcroft, the man who put him there, and all those that think like him are the worst thing that has happened to America. I've been a republican for 30 voting years, I had serious problems with W's daddy, but the son is driving me to consider voting for Dean.

Hey, "__x," at least try to get the guy's name correct. It's "John Gilmore," Dan is someone else.

And thanks for the passionate support of jackboots! Always amusing to hear from the "SHUT UP OR WE'LL MAKE YOU SHUT UP" crowd!

On another topic: hey, how 'bout that Constitution? Ain't it awesome?

--sean