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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

"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

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.

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.

For all the liberal dumb f***s out there. This was BRITISH Airways, the US constitution doesn't apply. Further more, for the other liberal dumb f***s out there, the Constitution protects individuals from government action NOT individual actions.
That fact that anybody on this board would consider Gilmore a martyr to the free speech movement just shows you how far the Left in America has fallen.
I'm glad I got all that Left Chomsky BS out of me when I was in college and replaced it with something few of you know about...it is called "Common Sense"...you should try it some time.

Somehow my earlier posting on this topic didn't make it - conspiracy? :-)

Two points I'd like to bring up:

First, when on a plane or boat, the captain's rule is law, no matter how silly. If he says that all people wearing green shirts must wear them inside out, so be it. This is well recognized in international law.

Second: Didn't Gilmore claim he wasn't going to fly until he resolved his OTHER lawsuit, over the photo ID?

I'm with Gilmore on this: it was political speech, it shoudl be protected, it did not harm, offend, endanger or inconvenience anyone until the crew decided to get snitty with him. The truth won't change, no matter how many "trouble makers" get thrown off of airplanes. These people aren't afraid of terrorists - they're afraid of the truth.

That said, now you can join in the fun: http://www.cafeshops.com/terrsuspect - proceeds go to the ACLU or somesuch.

"This was BRITISH Airways, the US constitution doesn't apply."
"First, when on a plane or boat, the captain's rule is law, no matter how silly."

Wrong and wrong. Unlike, say, the British Embassy, a BA jet doesn't carry its sovereignty around with it; when on US soil (which it was) US law applies. And while a pilot or captain does have some (not absolute) extended authority, this is the case only in international waters/airspace. Or are you trying to tell me that when I lived on my boat on the Cape Fear River here in North Carolina I could have had any of the people who visited me thrown in the brig?

Three important points, which I do not believe anyone will understand:

1) There is no such thing as a "protest button." There are only buttons. Yes, there is a concept of a thing that protestors call "protest buttons," but the actual objects are only buttons.

To believe that the imaginary social construct of "protest button" trumps the reality-based concrete "button" is extremely disturbing.

2) Maybe the linked site has changed since time of posting, but these buttons are not even good protest buttons. In fact, they are some of the worst inflammatory nonsense.

Among the other "political statements" are:

Intersex
Sex Worker
Trans/Genderqueer
Cuntlovin'
Perverse
and miscellaneous
Leaving just 1/7th of the total buttons for "racism."

So the site linked would more accurately be described as an "intersexed trans/genderqueer cuntlovin' perverse transexual website" than as an "anti-racism website." Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it gives no impression whatsoever of being in the mainstream of any culture (unless you count the lunatic liberal fringe).

3) Most important of all points:

John Gilmore is not Arab. He's just some nutjob who wore a "suspected terrorist" button on an airplane. As offensive as "anti-racist" racist activity is to me personally, I would think that everyone could appreciate how offensive it is to misappropriate one culture's legitimate political statement and use it is a bad practical joke.

John Gilmore is no different from a misguided Caucasian anime dork wearing one of those "yellow peril" buttons.

Hey Dutch, perhaps the reason why nobody will understand your "important points" is because they don't make any sense.

hey there, self-identified black guy here again. regarding your statement: "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.'

I find your statement neither ironic, or in any way comparable to what Rosa Parks did and for you to compare what Gilmore did to what Parks did is a really slick and inaccurate way to try and make your point. I'm a black man, I CAN'T CHANGE THAT. I can't remove my face plate at the pilot's request and replace it with a white guy face plate. Gilmore on the other hand could have taken off his button and subsequently filed a free speech lawsuit if he felt so strongly about it. We can disagree politely and intelligently, but I don't think you serve your argument by muddying the waters by comparing race with a button someone DECIDES to wear. As a black person, let me confirm for you that IT'S JUST NOT THE SAME.

If you really want to ride down that slippery slope, then let's start comparing: the african/af-american slavery holocaust with the american-indian colonization holocaust with the jewish holocaust and who had it worse. OR, suicide bombings conducted by the palestinians in the middle east versus the american president Truman's order to atomic bomb japan twice (killing piles and piles of civilian woman and children) and try to explain which act WAS or WASN'T an act of war OR an act of terrorism. See how tangled the arguments can get? How about leaving black people out of your argument/metaphors and just making a strong free speech argument...

p.s. Again, personally, I think Gilmore was wrong.

I don't know who is stupider, Gilmore for his prank or his "sweetheart" for staying with him.