I've just read all the messages, and I'm stunned that no one mentioned the split in authority and responsibility.

One person mentioned that businesses don't have to support public speech (generally but not entirely the case: mall owners can kick you out for wearing T-shirts with messages they don't like for no reason as they're private businesss). Several noted that Gilmore passed security clearance.

What we have in this odd situation is a case where the government authority did not impinge on his free speech and the private business did. The government didn't ask Gilmore to be taken off the plane; the company made private determination to remove him.

That might be the crux here. If John had been refused security clearance, that would be an entirely different matter. It's a civil tort now rather than a civil rights case.

John is also the guy who believes that despite the problem with spam and the fact that individual businesses should be allowed to make their own determinations about with whom they exchange email, that he should be allowed to run an open relay without his ISP cancelling his service.

The pilot and steward should be fired.

Why? Because he allowed the cabin door to be unlocked and opened so teh captain could go and yell at some annoying punk.

Thanks a lot idiot-- while you were coming out the door to yell at him, his co-conspirators burst into the cockpit and took control of the plane.

Have you *never* seen a spy/war/prison movie?

It's called a diversion-- and you fell for it.

Of course, at SFO the plane probably wouldn't have got onto the runway without crashing into another plane-- but still.

After 9/11 they're still allowing the cockpit door to open *ever* once a passenger is on board? I had assumed that there was some actual security on planes now (I haven't flown in years)-- but apparently not-- just lots of hassle.

The pilot and co-pilot should get on the plane, then they should lock the cockpit door. They don't need to come out and no one needs to come in once a passenger is on board. Portable chemical toilets, a two liter of Dr Pepper and a couple of bags of Doritoes should sustain them during the course of even the longest flight. Give them bottled water and fruit or maybe a porta fridge and a microwave if you're nice, but *never* open the cockpit door.

In 1986(7?) I saw a speech by a terroist expert and NSA advisor (Neil C. Livingston) who told us (a group of high school students and teachers) that a plane could theoretically be hijacked by holding a pencil to the carotid artery of a stewardess and threatening to kill her. The government knew that 15 years before 9/11 and two years after, they're still letting the cockpit to open after there are passengers on board?

With the current incompetant airport/airplane security, things like 9/11 will probably happen repeatedly. Demand *real* security from your government, not this illusion crap. This is totally unacceptable.

You will notice that my plan of keeping the cockpit door closed and locked does not increase the hassle level to the passengers *at all*-- but it does make them totally safe from a group a passengers stealing the plane. The worst that can happen is a plane-wide brawl where only toughest survive-- and I'd bet quite a lot that you couldn't get enough terrorists on a plane to ensure that it would be them.

"You are a suspected terrorist" would probably have worked better, but that's a lot to fit on a little button. I like Gilmore's button, it's terse, it's a little shocking to people who need to be shocked, and it clearly got a rise out of "Captain" Hughes! (Why are airline pilots called "Captains" anyway? They aren't ships, and these pilots are not in a military organization, so wtf?)

It's amazing to me that there are people who think him wearing the button was dangerous, as "Captain" Hughes stated. Will someone please explain how him wearing this button would have harmed anyone? Regardless of if Gilmore's an asshole or not, WHY has no one addressed this at all?

--sean

What do people thing of the message: "You are a suspected terrorist" instead of just "Suspected Terrorist". Do you think that would have made people "uncomfortable"? Perhaps his button was too subtle?

We're already brainwashed. That's why we're having this argument. It's kind of scary.

A previous poster writes: "Everyone knows if you joke about bombs when waiting to board the plane, you get the works."

WHY? Why should I get hassled for that? If I was a terrorist, would I be more or less likely to make jokes about a bomb in an airport? What the heck? I never understood this. If the general public can't tell the difference between two guys talking about "hey, I hope there isn't a bomb on this aircraft" and a well-coordinated effort by twenty terrorists to simultaneously hijack three (four) aircraft and slam them into buildings, we're in trouble, but the worst thing we can do is REINFORCE that behavior by arresting everyone.

America needs to remember that it has to be personally responsible. And sometimes this means that the Disneyland ride isn't the safest in the world, and planes do fall out of the sky. And people die. And it sucks. But thinking that acquiesing to censorship and totalitarianist leanings are a way to prevent this is pure fantasy.

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 be an uppity negro and sit at the front of the bus, which isn't really funny, more creepy and a little disconcerting to somebody, like me, who lives in fear of black people.

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

And note that none of the passengers seated near him were uncomfortable with his button. Nor were the security screeners who let him on the plane.

I don't have a problem with the idea that BA has the right to kick him off the plane if they don't like his clothes/hairstyle/choice of reading material. I do have a problem with the fact that a supposedly respectable organization like BA would choose to exercise this right in a case like this.

Several comments here are making me uncomfortable. Mark or Cory, could you turn BB back and eject the messages?

This is that bloody Gilmore's fault. They're going to have to reinstall their webserver because of him.

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