Freedom Eclipsed

[Malik Shabazz]

In honor of Fred Woodworth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Woodworth) and his long-running column of this same name in The Match! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Match), A Journal of Ethical Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_anarchism), I will periodically post stories of freedom eclipsed. Others are welcome to do the same.

[Malik Shabazz]

Freedom EclipsedIraqi says had to change t-shirt before US flight

Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:46pm ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - An Iraqi architect on Tuesday said he was forced to change his t-shirt before boarding a flight in New York because the shirt had "We will not be silent" written on it in Arabic and English.

Raed Jarrar wrote on his Internet blog (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com) that he was required to change out of the shirt prior to boarding a JetBlue flight from New York's John F. Kennedy Airport to California this month because officials told him people were offended by the shirt.

In an interview with New York Public Radio on Tuesday, Jarrar said, "I grew up and spent all my life living under authoritarian regimes and I know that these things happen. But I'm shocked that they happened to me here, in the U.S."http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-08-29T224642Z_01_N29281634_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-TSHIRT.xml&archived=False

[fallout]

You are funny.

A private company made a rule regarding a shirt it did not want on one if it's planes, and you call this "Freedom eclipsed"?

I consider this freedom exercised.

:rolleyes:

[Malik Shabazz]

A private company made a rule regarding a shirt it did not want on one if it's planes, and you call this "Freedom eclipsed"?Since when is the US government a private company? :shake:

[fallout]

Since when is the US government a private company? :shake:

What government? The Jet Blue lady called himn over and asked him to change his shirt. Those government officials are there beingt paid to do security for the airlines. They just stood and made sure her argument with the man did not get out of hand. She asked him to change the shirt. She offered to buy him a new shirt. His account is that Jet Blue did this to him. His blog includes numbers to Jet Blue to ask Jet Blue about Jet Blue's rules regarding shirts.

:lol:

Did you read your own post and the link to his explanation?

[fallout]

If you want to call Jet Blue and ask about their regulations against Arabic script, you can use the following numbers:

* If calling within the U.S., Bahamas or Puerto Rico: 1-800-JETBLUE (538-2583)
* If calling from the Dominican Republic: 1-200-9898
* If calling from outside the U.S. or Dominican Republic: 001-801-365-2525
* Customers who are deaf or heard of hearing (TTY/TDD): 1-800-336-5530

His blog.

[Malik Shabazz]

What government? The Jet Blue lady called himn over and asked him to change his shirt. Those government officials are there beingt paid to do security for the airlines. They just stood and made sure her argument with the man did not get out of hand. She asked him to change the shirt. She offered to buy him a new shirt. His account is that Jet Blue did this to him. His blog includes numbers to Jet Blue to ask Jet Blue about Jet Blue's rules regarding shirts.

:lol:

Did you read your own post and the link to his explanation?Yes I did. Maybe you don't live in the same United States I live in.

Where I live, there are armed TSA agents who accompany airline personnel when they confront passengers. Uniformed representatives of the United States government.

But I forgot. fallout hates liberty. :shake:

[Malik Shabazz]

If you want to call Jet Blue and ask about their regulations against Arabic script, you can use the following numbers:

* If calling within the U.S., Bahamas or Puerto Rico: 1-800-JETBLUE (538-2583)
* If calling from the Dominican Republic: 1-200-9898
* If calling from outside the U.S. or Dominican Republic: 001-801-365-2525
* Customers who are deaf or heard of hearing (TTY/TDD): 1-800-336-5530

His blog.His blog:The woman went away for 3 minutes, and she came back with a gray t-shirt reading "new york". I put the t-shirt on and removed the price tag. I told the four people who were involved in the conversation: "I feel very sad that my personal freedom was taken away like this. I grew up under authoritarian governments in the Middle East, and one of the reasons I chose to move to the US was that I don't want an officer to make me change my t-shirt. I will pursue this incident today through a Constitutional rights organization, and I am sure we will meet soon". Everyone said okay and left, and I went back to my seat.Maybe he's a little smarter than you, fallout, and knows that calling an airline to complain is more likely to get results than calling the US government to complain. :roll2:

[fallout]

Keep clinging to that.

:lol:

Lets assume a bar has a rowdy patron or perhaps a patron with an offensive shirt on (to the bar owner/staff) and calls the police to remove him. Is the bar "the government"? Are the police removing him violating his rights?

:lol:

This is one of the funniest stretches I have ever seen you make. It is almost "harry" worthy.

Serious question, have you been drinking tonight?

[fallout]

His blog:Maybe he's a little smarter than you, fallout, and knows that calling an airline to complain is more likely to get results than calling the US government to complain. :roll2:

" The woman went away for 3 minutes, and she came back with a gray t-shirt reading "new york"."

This was of course the "jet blue" woman. :lol:

[Malik Shabazz]

fallout, your reading comprehension is worse than I had feared.

Mr. Jarrar's harassment by the TSA started before he got to the JetBlue gate. He was approached by TSA agents before the JetBlue agent came.

If you would like to believe that the US government works for JetBlue Airlines, go ahead. Don't let me disabuse you of your fantasy.

[fallout]

fallout, your reading comprehension is worse than I had feared.

Mr. Jarrar's harassment by the TSA started before he got to the JetBlue gate. He was approached by TSA agents before the JetBlue agent came.

If you would like to believe that the US government works for JetBlue Airlines, go ahead. Don't let me disabuse you of your fantasy.

This is not how I read it. Jet Blue got complaints. They called the TSA over to help is how I read it. This is why he has the numbers for Jet Blue on his blog and not the TSA.

Reasons I think this is Jet bLue doing this: from his blog:

"So based on the fact that Jet Blue doesn't have a translator, anything in Arabic is suspicious because maybe it'll mean something bad!"

"We walked some few steps and stood in front of the boarding counter where I found out that they were accompanied by another person, a woman from Jet Blue." If the TSA had a problem with the shirt, why involve the Jet Blue lady at all?

"Many people called and complained about your t-shirt. Jetblue customers were calling before you reached the checkpoint, and costumers called when you were waiting here in the boarding area"." Jet Blue customers made calls. You assume they called the TSA?

This part is funny but not related to why I think this way: "it was then that I realized that my t-shirt was the reason why I had been taken to the secondary checking" If you change "realized" to "pulled out of my ass", he would be correct.

"I asked the four people again to let me talk to any supervisor, and they refused." Supervisor? TSA or Jet Blue? We know for sure one of the involved is Jet Blue. The others are unknown according to his blog.

"The Jet Blue woman was asking me again to end this problem by just putting on a new t-shirt," Hmm. Not one mention of TSA so far, many of jet blue...

" I asked the Jet Blue woman to buy me a t-shirt" Jet blue bought him a t-short. Interesting. The TSA gets complaints, wants him to change his shirt and Jet Blue buys the shirt? This is logical to you?

"At 8:50 I was called again by a fourth young man, standing with the same jetblue woman. He asked for my boarding pass, so I gave it to him, and stood in front of the boarding counter. I asked the woman: "is everything okay?", she responded: "Yes, sure. We just have to change your seat"" Jet blue changed his seat. The TSA can do this? I doubt it.

Of course, the fact that he told us it was Jet Blue with the problem at the end of his blog: "If you want to call Jet Blue and ask about their regulations against Arabic script, you can use the following numbers:" Really should have tipped you off.

I apologize if in this thread I came across as snarky, but I have been drinking tonight. :)

Maybe you can explain to me now the basis for thinking the US government :tfh: was behind this?

[Eimon Gnome]

You are funny.

A private company made a rule regarding a shirt it did not want on one if it's planes, and you call this "Freedom eclipsed"?

I consider this freedom exercised.

:rolleyes:

Very telling.
How do you equate a company (an abstraction) with a person? As far as I know, corporations and businesses are not blessed with inalienable rights. They do not speak, no one prays for their souls, they have no conscience, they are not even corporeal. In short, companies do not have rights, in the same sense as human beings. They are, themselves, legal constructs for conducting business and trade. They cannot "excercise freedom".

[Gandalf]

fallout,

Do you think Inspector Harris worked for Jet Blue or for the US government?

you can't wear a t-shirt with Arabic script and come to an airport. It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads "I am a robber" and going to a bank

[mexx]

Whether it's right or wrong .. why must people try and make political statements on t-shirts while trying to board a plane?
Right or wrong, of course it will make some people uncomfortable. That's just a fact of life in North America right now.

[Malik Shabazz]

I apologize if in this thread I came across as snarky, but I have been drinking tonight. :)

Maybe you can explain to me now the basis for thinking the US government :tfh: was behind this?I'm sorry that I was so nasty.

Here's why I think it was the government:

The second search by the TSA
Inspector Harris and his official-sounding title
Inspector Harris and his badge
[The second man in his greenish suit, which I read (mistakenly late at night) as a uniform]I find your argument about the JetBlue woman buying the t-shirt completely unconvincing, because she was trying to mediate between the official-seeming men and Mr. Jarrar.So the woman interfered and said "let's reach a compromise. I will buy you a new t-shirt and you can put it on on top of this one". ... I asked the Jet Blue woman to buy me a t-shirt and I said "I don't want to miss my flight."I also don't buy your (or Inspector Harris's argument that people were offended by his t-shirt. Law enforcement often tries to blame others for their own actions. "We received noise complaints from the neighbors. Do you mind if we come in and have a look around?" Yeah, right. :roll2:

[Malik Shabazz]

Whether it's right or wrong .. why must people try and make political statements on t-shirts while trying to board a plane?
Right or wrong, of course it will make some people uncomfortable. That's just a fact of life in North America right now.It sounds like Mr. Jarrar was trying to make a point, and was "looking for trouble."

In other instances, passengers have not been permitted to board airplanes because they were carrying books whose titles were in Arabic (or perhaps Farsi or Pashto; most Americans [myself included] can't tell the difference).

Should people stop reading things, or stop speaking among themselves, in their native languages? At some point, people have got to start standing up to the stupidity and prejudice, even if that "makes some people uncomfortable."

[Gandalf]

I also don't buy your (or Inspector Harris's argument) that people were offended by his t-shirt. Law enforcement often tries to blame others for their own actions. "We received noise complaints from the neighbors. Do you mind if we come in and have a look around?" Yeah, right. :roll2:
I find it plausible - not definite of course - that people were offended and complained. That doesn't mean that the law enforcement should take action just because people complained. Law enforcement should enforce the law.

[mexx]

It sounds like Mr. Jarrar was trying to make a point, and was "looking for trouble."

In other instances, passengers have not been permitted to board airplanes because they were carrying books whose titles were in Arabic (or perhaps Farsi or Pashto; most Americans [myself included] can't tell the difference).

Should people stop reading things, or stop speaking among themselves, in their native languages? At some point, people have got to start standing up to the stupidity and prejudice, even if that "makes some people uncomfortable."

Yes, you're right - at somepoint people have to start standing up.
However, maybe I just pay more attention when choosing my clothing, but I try to wear what I think the "audience" at my destination will find appropriate. When I travel to Pakistan, as an example, I don't wear jeans or pants, and definitely not skirts. Not because it's unheard of, or wrong or anything .. just because some people may not appreciate it.
(and might I add - I practically live in jeans and capris, and everything else is ridiculously uncomfortable for me)

When it comes to books - they're for your personal reading/entertainment. But wearing words across your chest is asking people to look.


I don't think the t-shirt should have offended anybody .. but the point is that I can see it made people uncomfortable. That's lack of information/education about the topic by those people .. but in my view the authorities have a responsibility to diffuse situations in the quickest/best ways possible. Asking someone to change their t-shirt sounds like a reasonable option, especially when they were willing to actually buy the person a new one.

(though maybe if this happened to me, I may not be so understanding)

[fallout]

Very telling.
How do you equate a company (an abstraction) with a person? As far as I know, corporations and businesses are not blessed with inalienable rights. They do not speak, no one prays for their souls, they have no conscience, they are not even corporeal. In short, companies do not have rights, in the same sense as human beings. They are, themselves, legal constructs for conducting business and trade. They cannot "excercise freedom".

I disagree with you. Especially your last statement.

It is very telling.

[E. Blackadder]

That's going a bit far. Sure in the abstract, a corporation isn't... corporal, but it is an amalgamation of people. If we didn't permit corporations to exist and have some rights, we'd be substantially worse off in the aggregate. So let's hoist a beer to the most maligned entities of all time.

Let's also remember that corporations lost their souls because it was necessary to protect them from the plaintiffs.

[Eimon Gnome]

That's going a bit far. Sure in the abstract, a corporation isn't... corporal, but it is an amalgamation of people. If we didn't permit corporations to exist and have some rights, we'd be substantially worse off in the aggregate. So let's hoist a beer to the most maligned entities of all time.

Let's also remember that corporations lost their souls because it was necessary to protect them from the plaintiffs.

They have legal status. They are governed by tort law, civil law. But they are most definitley not citizens. They cannot vote. They cannot serve in the military. They cannot hold office. They are an abstraction. The indiviuals involved in the corp have rights - whether employees or shareholders. But they have those rights regardless of the company.

To say they have rights, in the context of Constitutional law, is wrong headed. They have authority - as in forbidding entrance to their premises, and all sorts of powers. But "rights" in the context of this thread? Nope.

In fact, corporations do not even have a right to life. The market kills bad ones all the time.

[Pseudolus]

To say they have rights, in the context of Constitutional law, is wrong headed.It's a verbal shortcut. The people owning the corp. have rights. To curtail or violate the rights of the company means to curtail or violate the rights of the people owning the company.

[Eimon Gnome]

It's a verbal shortcut. The people owning the corp. have rights. To curtail or violate the rights of the company means to curtail or violate the rights of the people owning the company.

Sort of "one degree of separation". That I can go with. It gets interesting to see what rights make it through that first filter and which ones don't.

e.g. - freedom of religion seems to get trumped by commerce and anti discrimination. I don't think you can have a public company that only employs Baptisits, even if the shareholders want to.

[Mr. Penguin]

You are funny.

A private company made a rule regarding a shirt it did not want on one if it's planes, and you call this "Freedom eclipsed"?

I consider this freedom exercised.

:rolleyes:

And yet you have a problem with a private hospital making a rule regarding smoking on their premises?

Please try to be more consistent.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Werewolf]

Malik, surely you've heard of students being forced to change t-shirts or turn them inside out because something on it was offensive? Say, a student wearing a t-shirt with the Confederate flag. That is CLEARLY a case of the government abridging freedom. Will you post those examples here too?

[Gandalf]

Malik, surely you've heard of students being forced to change t-shirts or turn them inside out because something on it was offensive? Say, a student wearing a t-shirt with the Confederate flag. That is CLEARLY a case of the government abridging freedom. Will you post those examples here too?
Rightly or wrongly, the courts have agreed that students have fewer rights in schools. Even then, the rules have to have some degree of rationality. E.g., I consider it unlikely that schools in Boston could bar a student from wearing a Yankees shirt. Barring arabic characters on the shirt, without knowing the meaning, borders on (or is well within) irrationality.

Maybe JetBlue could ban such shirts on its flights. I don't think the Federal government on its own should be banning them.

[fallout]

And yet you have a problem with a private hospital making a rule regarding smoking on their premises?

Please try to be more consistent.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Who siad I have a problem with it?

Also, I distinctly mentioned in that thread, and noone corrected me, that the hospital surely receives public funding, without which, it would cease to exist. Is there really such a thing as a private hospital in America?

[fallout]

Rightly or wrongly, the courts have agreed that students have fewer rights in schools. Even then, the rules have to have some degree of rationality. E.g., I consider it unlikely that schools in Boston could bar a student from wearing a Yankees shirt. Barring arabic characters on the shirt, without knowing the meaning, borders on (or is well within) irrationality.

Maybe JetBlue could ban such shirts on its flights. I don't think the Federal government on its own should be banning them.

Schools ban shirts based on colors alone. :)

Private schools can force each kid to wear the exact same clothing. This arabic language thing is surely not a stretch.

[Gandalf]

Schools ban shirts based on colors alone. :)

Private schools can force each kid to wear the exact same clothing. This arabic language thing is surely not a stretch.
Private schools <> federal government. Not comparable.

The bans based on color, I believe, are on the basis that the colors have meanings.

In any case, as I said before the courts have ruled that students rights in schools are less than adults' rights elsewhere. If you want to argue that students should have more rights, go ahead, but you cannot judge rights in general based on rights in school.

[Mr. Penguin]

Who siad I have a problem with it?

Also, I distinctly mentioned in that thread, and noone corrected me, that the hospital surely receives public funding, without which, it would cease to exist. Is there really such a thing as a private hospital in America?

Ummm, you started a thread about it?

And your reference to "public funding":

Is there such a thing as a hospital that does not get public money? Turning away all medicaid, medicare etc?

i.e. the difference is in the public v. private distinction.

The money that hospitals get from medicaid, medicare are not subsidies. They represent, for the most part, simply the cost of the services rendered.

The airline industry though, receives many subsidies, some direct, many non-direct. Direct subsidies from the federal government have averaged over one billion dollars a year from 1990 to 2002 (http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/table_02.html).

And then there are the indirect subsidies that are never fully billed to airlines such as the airport and airport access construction costs, security and air traffic control.

[fallout]

Private schools <> federal government. Not comparable.

The bans based on color, I believe, are on the basis that the colors have meanings.

In any case, as I said before the courts have ruled that students rights in schools are less than adults' rights elsewhere. If you want to argue that students should have more rights, go ahead, but you cannot judge rights in general based on rights in school.

Do you think it is more irrational to ban based on colors with "meanings" or words in a different language?
What if a gang started that signalled membership by displaying words in Italian or something? Do you consider it out of the realm of possibility that they are banned?

[Gandalf]

Do you think it is more irrational to ban based on colors with "meanings" or words in a different language?
What if a gang started that signalled membership by displaying words in Italian or something? Do you consider it out of the realm of possibility that they are banned?
fallout,

:shake:

You still seem to be overlooking the fact that different rules apply to schools. This is well-established in the courts. Maybe it shouldn't be the case, but it is. So something could be banned in schools but not banned in airports.

For your specific case: if a gang started to signal membership by displaying words in Italian, I consider it within the realm of possibility that shirts displaying Italian words could be banned in schools. Absent such a connection, I don't consider it within the realm of possibility that shirts displaying Italian words could be banned. Even if schools banned shirts with Italian words because of a gang connection, I don't think shirts with Italian words could be banned in airports.

In the case being discussed in this thread: shirts with Arabic words were banned in an airport, and there was no indication that Arabic words on a shirt suggested the person was a gang member, terrorist, criminal, etc.

[fallout]

Ummm, you started a thread about it?



Just FTR, I do not have a problem with everything I start a thread bout.

:)

I start threads when I want to generate discussion.

Usually, when I am bored.

:toast:

[Malik Shabazz]

Malik, surely you've heard of students being forced to change t-shirts or turn them inside out because something on it was offensive? Say, a student wearing a t-shirt with the Confederate flag. That is CLEARLY a case of the government abridging freedom. Will you post those examples here too?
Rightly or wrongly, the courts have agreed that students have fewer rights in schools. Even then, the rules have to have some degree of rationality. E.g., I consider it unlikely that schools in Boston could bar a student from wearing a Yankees shirt. Barring arabic characters on the shirt, without knowing the meaning, borders on (or is well within) irrationality.In 1969, in a case involving students who had been expelled from school for wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam war (but not acting in a disruptive manner), the Supreme Court said that:First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. [MS - That's among my favorite lines in Supreme Court decisions.] ...

The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. ...

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained.Tinker v. Des Moines School District (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/data/us/393/503.html)

As far as I know, Tinker has not been overturned and still applies.

With respect to offensive t-shirts or gang colors, the question is whether school officials are afraid of a disturbance, or whether they can demonstrate -- if challenged in court -- that the presence of such shirts or colors would interfere with discipline and school operations.

(And Werewolf, in direct response to your question, if any such cases are mentioned in the pinko commie rags that I read, I will post them. If you would like to post them, be my guest.)

[E. Blackadder]

http://junkyardblog.net/archives/week_2006_09_03.html#005995

[Miss Mansfield] attended the Arabic session where a man identified as Khaled recounted a New York flight. He and his friends acted suspicious and made simultaneous restroom runs to frighten passengers. “He laughed when he described how several women were in tears, and one man sitting near him was praying,” Miss Mansfield later wrote in an account of that meeting on her personal Web site. “As the meeting drew to a close, the imam gave a brief speech calling for the protection of Allah on the mujahedeen fighting for Islam throughout the world, and reminded everyone that it was their duty as Muslims to continue in the path of jihad, whether it was simple efforts like those of Khaled and his friends, or the actual physical fighting,” Miss Mansfield wrote.

So they commit mini-jihad and then whine on their little blogspots when they get assigned smelly seats. Rape 'em.

[fallout]

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/08/31/18305135.php

On August 12th, Iraqi blogger Raed Jarrar was told by airline Jet Blue that he could not board an airline with a t-shirt saying "we will not be silent" in Arabic and English. One official told him, "Going to an airport with a T-shirt in Arabic script is like going to a bank and wearing a T-shirt that says, `I'm a robber'". A Jet Blue employee told him "we can't let you get on that airplane with your t-shirt". Raed responded, "I am ready to put on another t-shirt if you tell me what is the law that requires such a thing. I want to talk to your supervisor". The official responded "You don't have to talk to anyone. Many people called and complained about your t-shirt. Jetblue customers were calling before you reached the checkpoint, and costumers called when you were waiting here in the boarding area".

Seems to me my version of the event - Jet Blue banned him, is the correct one.

[Gandalf]

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/08/31/18305135.php

On August 12th, Iraqi blogger Raed Jarrar was told by airline Jet Blue that he could not board an airline with a t-shirt saying "we will not be silent" in Arabic and English. One official told him, "Going to an airport with a T-shirt in Arabic script is like going to a bank and wearing a T-shirt that says, `I'm a robber'". A Jet Blue employee told him "we can't let you get on that airplane with your t-shirt". Raed responded, "I am ready to put on another t-shirt if you tell me what is the law that requires such a thing. I want to talk to your supervisor". The official responded "You don't have to talk to anyone. Many people called and complained about your t-shirt. Jetblue customers were calling before you reached the checkpoint, and costumers called when you were waiting here in the boarding area".

Seems to me my version of the event - Jet Blue banned him, is the correct one.
It seems to me that your version of the event is the same as your source's version. And your source knows what happened how?

Malik quoted Raed's description of what happened in Raed's own words. Raed explicitly attributes statements to "Inspector Harris". Do you think "Inspector Harris" was a Jet Blue employee? Note that even your source attributes some statements to a Jet Blue employee, and others to "an official."

[Ronald Reagan]

Whether it's right or wrong .. why must people try and make political statements on t-shirts while trying to board a plane?
Right or wrong, of course it will make some people uncomfortable. That's just a fact of life in North America right now.

Some had the nerve to be Japanese during WWII. Why did they do that? Why didn't they just change to meet my suburban comfort standards?

[fallout]

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/08/31/18305135.php

On August 12th, Iraqi blogger Raed Jarrar was told by airline Jet Blue that he could not board an airline with a t-shirt saying "we will not be silent" in Arabic and English. One official told him, "Going to an airport with a T-shirt in Arabic script is like going to a bank and wearing a T-shirt that says, `I'm a robber'". A Jet Blue employee told him "we can't let you get on that airplane with your t-shirt". Raed responded, "I am ready to put on another t-shirt if you tell me what is the law that requires such a thing. I want to talk to your supervisor". The official responded "You don't have to talk to anyone. Many people called and complained about your t-shirt. Jetblue customers were calling before you reached the checkpoint, and costumers called when you were waiting here in the boarding area".

Seems to me my version of the event - Jet Blue banned him, is the correct one.
It seems to me that your version of the event is the same as your source's version. And your source knows what happened how?

Malik quoted Raed's description of what happened in Raed's own words. Raed explicitly attributes statements to "Inspector Harris". Do you think "Inspector Harris" was a Jet Blue employee? Note that even your source attributes some statements to a Jet Blue employee, and others to "an official."


Gandalf, just FTR, "my source" (as you like to call it) is the blog of the guy who was wearing the shirt. I suppose he could be considered uninformed about the incident, but somehow, I doubt it.

:wave:

[Malik Shabazz]

Gandalf, just FTR, "my source" (as you like to call it) is the blog of the guy who was wearing the shirt. I suppose he could be considered uninformed about the incident, but somehow, I doubt it.

:wave:No, fallout, your source is a summary of Mr. Jarrar's blog from an unknown writer that was posted at indybay.org. :shake:

[Gandalf]

Gandalf, just FTR, "my source" (as you like to call it) is the blog of the guy who was wearing the shirt. I suppose he could be considered uninformed about the incident, but somehow, I doubt it.

:wave:No, fallout, your source is a summary of Mr. Jarrar's blog from an unknown writer that was posted at indybay.org. :shake:
An unknown writer, but I did find this confirmation (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=1724007&postcount=5) of what the unknown writer wrote, so it must be accurate.

[Pseudolus]

Just checking - the sum total of freedom thus far eclipsed is some dude being asked to change his shirt?

[HangerAngler]

Just checking - the sum total of freedom thus far eclipsed is some dude being asked to change his shirt?

Yes. Stay calm.

[Guest]

Just checking - the sum total of freedom thus far eclipsed is some dude being asked to change his shirt?
Well, you have to include tapping phone conversations without warrants, government perusal of millions of phone records, tracking of library activities, 80 year old grandma's being patted down by TSA at the airport, and other stuff like that to get to the "sum total."

[fallout]

Gandalf, just FTR, "my source" (as you like to call it) is the blog of the guy who was wearing the shirt. I suppose he could be considered uninformed about the incident, but somehow, I doubt it.

:wave:No, fallout, your source is a summary of Mr. Jarrar's blog from an unknown writer that was posted at indybay.org. :shake:

I was referring to post #12 in this thread which explained from where I drew my conclusions.

[HangerAngler]

[, 80 year old grandma's being patted down by TSA at the airport, and other stuff like that to get to the "sum total."

Which would you prefer:
-everyone is eligible and equally likely to get patted down at the airport, including 80 yr old grandma's
OR
-we profile for those likely to be terrorists

?

[Griffin 1]

Which would you prefer:
-everyone is eligible and equally likely to get patted down at the airport, including 80 yr old grandma's
OR
-we profile for those likely to be terrorists

?Profiling is wrong. Unless Congress is the one doing the profiling, that is.

[Guest]

[, 80 year old grandma's being patted down by TSA at the airport, and other stuff like that to get to the "sum total."

Which would you prefer:
-everyone is eligible and equally likely to get patted down at the airport, including 80 yr old grandma's
OR
-we profile for those likely to be terrorists

?
Profiling. Hands down.

Not profiling is a waste of resources.

Israeli's have been using something called...crap I can't remember, but I'll look it up ...some kind of profiling where they have peopel just watching guys going through security, they pick out people who look suspicious (not smiling or talking, sweating, avoiding eye contact, shaking, hands in and out of pockets) and then they casually ask them questions - where are you headed? See the game over the weekend?, etc. - and if they're taken off guard or see nervous, they pull them out of line for a more targeted interview. Apprarently this has been very effective.

Here's a good link discussing the most secure airtravel system in the world - http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/23/what_israeli_security_could_teach_us/

[Gandalf]

I was referring to post #12 in this thread which explained from where I drew my conclusions.Oh. I was referring to the link you posted in 37 to confirm that your version of what happened.

If we agree that the words of the person it happened to are the best available source, why haven't you addressed the actions of "Inspector Harris" as described in that best available source. For what I think is the fourth time from Malik or me, do you agree that "Inspector Harris" appears to be a government employee, not a Jet Blue employee, and that some words attributed to him are not consistent with what a TSA employee should be saying?

[fallout]

I was referring to post #12 in this thread which explained from where I drew my conclusions.Oh. I was referring to the link you posted in 37 to confirm that your version of what happened.

If we agree that the words of the person it happened to are the best available source, why haven't you addressed the actions of "Inspector Harris" as described in that best available source. For what I think is the fourth time from Malik or me, do you agree that "Inspector Harris" appears to be a government employee, not a Jet Blue employee, and that some words attributed to him are not consistent with what a TSA employee should be saying?

I did. I mentioned an example where a bar calls in the police to help evict a rowdy patron etc...

It is the bar doing the evicting and the cops are acting as an agent of the bar. Not unlike the inspector (who by the way is never called a TSA inspector and could actually be a Jet Blue air marshall type) was called in by Jet Blue.

The premise of this thread is very weak. Weakened by the fact that the individual whose "rights" were violated blames Jet Blue, not the government. I have a sneaking suspicion he is the type that would love to have been able to blame the government for this.

[Gandalf]

Oh. I was referring to the link you posted in 37 to confirm that your version of what happened.

If we agree that the words of the person it happened to are the best available source, why haven't you addressed the actions of "Inspector Harris" as described in that best available source. For what I think is the fourth time from Malik or me, do you agree that "Inspector Harris" appears to be a government employee, not a Jet Blue employee, and that some words attributed to him are not consistent with what a TSA employee should be saying?

I did. I mentioned an example where a bar calls in the police to help evict a rowdy patron etc...

It is the bar doing the evicting and the cops are acting as an agent of the bar. Not unlike the inspector (who by the way is never called a TSA inspector and could actually be a Jet Blue air marshall type) was called in by Jet Blue.
You mentioned an example where a bar calls in the police to help evict a rowdy patron etc. And if the police in the process tell the rowdy patron 'If we ever catch you in town again with that 'Bush is Dumb' t-shirt, we'll lock you up" are the police just doing their job?

From that best available source Then I once again asked the three of them : "How come you are asking me to change my t-shirt? Isn't this my constitutional right to wear it? I am ready to change it if you tell me why I should. Do you have an order against Arabic t-shirts? Is there such a law against Arabic script?" so inspector Harris answered "you can't wear a t-shirt with Arabic script and come to an airport. It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads "I am a robber" and going to a bank".

If Inspector Harris is a government employee, was that statement proper?

[Griffin 1]

Very telling.
How do you equate a company (an abstraction) with a person? As far as I know, corporations and businesses are not blessed with inalienable rights. They do not speak, no one prays for their souls, they have no conscience, they are not even corporeal. In short, companies do not have rights, in the same sense as human beings. They are, themselves, legal constructs for conducting business and trade. They cannot "excercise freedom".Cool. So we can finally make it illegal for the Democratic Party and Planned Parenthood to buy ads on TV.

[fallout]

I did. I mentioned an example where a bar calls in the police to help evict a rowdy patron etc...

It is the bar doing the evicting and the cops are acting as an agent of the bar. Not unlike the inspector (who by the way is never called a TSA inspector and could actually be a Jet Blue air marshall type) was called in by Jet Blue.
You mentioned an example where a bar calls in the police to help evict a rowdy patron etc. And if the police in the process tell the rowdy patron 'If we ever catch you in town again with that 'Bush is Dumb' t-shirt, we'll lock you up" are the police just doing their job?

From that best available source Then I once again asked the three of them : "How come you are asking me to change my t-shirt? Isn't this my constitutional right to wear it? I am ready to change it if you tell me why I should. Do you have an order against Arabic t-shirts? Is there such a law against Arabic script?" so inspector Harris answered "you can't wear a t-shirt with Arabic script and come to an airport. It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads "I am a robber" and going to a bank".

If Inspector Harris is a government employee, was that statement proper?

If the police in the above example say "in this bar" you would have some sort of equivalence.

I do not personally approve of the statement Mr. Harris made, and I personally do not care if the guy wears arabic language on his shirt. That being said, I believe an airport should have the ability to set and enforce things like dress codes. :dsmile:

[Guest]

That being said, I believe an airport should have the ability to set and enforce things like dress codes. :dsmile:

Why? I'm assuming you mean a dress code beyond basic public decency laws.

[Griffin 1]

Why? I'm assuming you mean a dress code beyond basic public decency laws.What is a basic public decency law but an arbitrary line?

[Pseudolus]

Ethical Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_anarchism)The author of that manifesto in place of an article seems never to have met any actual, you know, "people".

[Gandalf]

You mentioned an example where a bar calls in the police to help evict a rowdy patron etc. And if the police in the process tell the rowdy patron 'If we ever catch you in town again with that 'Bush is Dumb' t-shirt, we'll lock you up" are the police just doing their job?

From that best available source Then I once again asked the three of them : "How come you are asking me to change my t-shirt? Isn't this my constitutional right to wear it? I am ready to change it if you tell me why I should. Do you have an order against Arabic t-shirts? Is there such a law against Arabic script?" so inspector Harris answered "you can't wear a t-shirt with Arabic script and come to an airport. It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads "I am a robber" and going to a bank".

If Inspector Harris is a government employee, was that statement proper?

If the police in the above example say "in this bar" you would have some sort of equivalence.

I do not personally approve of the statement Mr. Harris made, and I personally do not care if the guy wears arabic language on his shirt. That being said, I believe an airport should have the ability to set and enforce things like dress codes. :dsmile:
Your belief is that Jet Blue was the one complaining. Many airports are publicly owned. Even if the airport were privately owned, Jet Blue should not be making an airport-wide dress code.

Do you really think any airport would establish a dress code barring arabic-lettered t-shirts? And would explain its dress code as It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads "I am a robber" and going to a bank". The suggestion that the officer was enforcing an established dress code seems really far-fetched.

[Guest]

Why? I'm assuming you mean a dress code beyond basic public decency laws.What is a basic public decency law but an arbitrary line?

That's true, but it's also a law...

...as far as I know, it's currently against the law in most places for me to walk around topless, but not for me to wear a shirt with Arabic writing on it.

Why should ariports impose stricter codes than the local municipalities? They're not "private" in that they are an integral part of public transportation.

[fallout]

That being said, I believe an airport should have the ability to set and enforce things like dress codes. :dsmile:

Why? I'm assuming you mean a dress code beyond basic public decency laws.

Who am I to tell them how to run their business?

Who are you to, for that matter. If you don't like how that (any) airport operates, go to another airport or take a train, a boat or drive.

You do not have the right to use an airport in a way that you wish to. The right to run the airport the way they see fit rests with the airport itself (or it should). This is called freedom.

[fallout]

You mentioned an example where a bar calls in the police to help evict a rowdy patron etc. And if the police in the process tell the rowdy patron 'If we ever catch you in town again with that 'Bush is Dumb' t-shirt, we'll lock you up" are the police just doing their job?

From that best available source

If Inspector Harris is a government employee, was that statement proper?

If the police in the above example say "in this bar" you would have some sort of equivalence.

I do not personally approve of the statement Mr. Harris made, and I personally do not care if the guy wears arabic language on his shirt. That being said, I believe an airport should have the ability to set and enforce things like dress codes. :dsmile:
Your belief is that Jet Blue was the one complaining. Many airports are publicly owned. Even if the airport were privately owned, Jet Blue should not be making an airport-wide dress code.

Do you really think any airport would establish a dress code barring arabic-lettered t-shirts? And would explain its dress code as It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads "I am a robber" and going to a bank". The suggestion that the officer was enforcing an established dress code seems really far-fetched.


Publically owned (as in a stock company) is NOT public. Seriously, this is one of the most basic precepts we need to get passed so that we can discuss situations like this.

Bottom line is the airport hires an officer, he uses his judgment sometimes. If they hired poorly, or he overstepped his bounds, they should replace him, and/or suffer the cost of lower business. This is called freedom. The freedom to run your business as poorly as you choose.

[fallout]

What is a basic public decency law but an arbitrary line?

That's true, but it's also a law...

...as far as I know, it's currently against the law in most places for me to walk around topless, but not for me to wear a shirt with Arabic writing on it.

Why should ariports impose stricter codes than the local municipalities? They're not "private" in that they are an integral part of public transportation.

It is also not against the law for you to walk around with box cutters, but I do not recommend you bring them to the airplane with you.

Businesses like airports can and do set their own rules. Can I protest that my company forcing me to wear a tie is illegal because I can be on the street without one?

:rolleyes:

[Guest]

Publically owned (as in a stock company) is NOT public. Seriously, this is one of the most basic precepts we need to get passed so that we can discuss situations like this.Yes, fallout...and another one is that "private" doesn't mean the same thing for an entity that does business with the public as it does for a private individual. This is why it's possible to make laws against stores refusing service to minorities, etc.

[Griffin 1]

That's true, but it's also a law...So if we make it a law you'd be fine with it?

[Guest]

It is also not against the law for you to walk around with box cutters, but I do not recommend you bring them to the airplane with you. This isn't about boxcutters, this is about tee shirts.

You said you'd support dress codes at airports...why?

Businesses like airports can and do set their own rules. Can I protest that my company forcing me to wear a tie is illegal because I can be on the street without one?

:rolleyes:
An airport was not the employer here, was it? An airport is provider of service to the masses, a service that may be considered an integral part of freedom and opportunity (that is, freedom of movement).

[Guest]

That's true, but it's also a law...So if we make it a law you'd be fine with it?

Fine with what?

[Gandalf]

Publically owned (as in a stock company) is NOT public. Seriously, this is one of the most basic precepts we need to get passed so that we can discuss situations like this.

Bottom line is the airport hires an officer, he uses his judgment sometimes. If they hired poorly, or he overstepped his bounds, they should replace him, and/or suffer the cost of lower business. This is called freedom. The freedom to run your business as poorly as you choose.
True. Publicly owned (as in a stock company) is NOT public. I believe the normal term for that is publicly traded, not publicly owned. What airports do you think are publicly traded? Can you give me some stock symbols for them? I might want to sell some of them short if they are going to adopt dress codes like this.

[Griffin 1]

So if we make it a law you'd be fine with it?Fine with what?That thing they told the dude about not wearing shirts with Arabic writing at the airport.

[Pseudolus]

...as far as I know, it's currently against the law in most places for me to walk around topless, but not for me to wear a shirt with Arabic writing on it.And if you joke about bombs in a nightclub, you won't get arrested.


Why should ariports impose stricter codes than the local municipalities?

They're not "private" in that they are an integral part of public transportation.Perhaps they should be private. That would solve a lot of the conflict between the rights of the government-as-property-owner and the Constitutional limitations on government-as-government. See also "schools, public".

[fallout]

This isn't about boxcutters, this is about tee shirts.

You said you'd support dress codes at airports...why?

Businesses like airports can and do set their own rules. Can I protest that my company forcing me to wear a tie is illegal because I can be on the street without one?

:rolleyes:
An airport was not the employer here, was it? An airport is provider of service to the masses, a service that may be considered an integral part of freedom and opportunity (that is, freedom of movement).


You do not have the right to get on an airplane.

Freedom of movement might be a right, but freedom to make other people move you is not.

[fallout]

Publically owned (as in a stock company) is NOT public. Seriously, this is one of the most basic precepts we need to get passed so that we can discuss situations like this.Yes, fallout...and another one is that "private" doesn't mean the same thing for an entity that does business with the public as it does for a private individual. This is why it's possible to make laws against stores refusing service to minorities, etc.

Possible does not mean it is right.

:judge:

I actually disagree with your assertion that private people and privately owned companies should be subject to different privacy rights.

I think the rights should be absolutely the same. Just as I can refuse dinner to anyone at my potluck supper at home, I should be allowed to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason no matter how inane it appears to the enlightened few.

[fallout]

Fine with what?That thing they told the dude about not wearing shirts with Arabic writing at the airport.

I never heard about that. Meh.

[Gandalf]

I think the rights should be absolutely the same. Just as I can refuse dinner to anyone at my potluck supper at home, I should be allowed to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason no matter how inane it appears to the enlightened few.
You as a private individual have the right to think that.

Meanwhile, have you dropped your theory that most airports are publicly traded or privately held by individuals? I'm waiting for examples.

[Lucy]

...as far as I know, it's currently against the law in most places for me to walk around topless, but not for me to wear a shirt with Arabic writing on it.And if you joke about bombs in a nightclub, you won't get arrested.


Why should ariports impose stricter codes than the local municipalities?

They're not "private" in that they are an integral part of public transportation.Perhaps they should be private. That would solve a lot of the conflict between the rights of the government-as-property-owner and the Constitutional limitations on government-as-government. See also "schools, public".[/QUOTE]Airports have a natural monopoly, or near-monopoly. But it would be interesting if the airlines each could set their own security requirements. Do you think people would buy the ticket with the company that enforced "no bottled water"? "No guns"? "no baseball bats"? They could each advertise the advantages of their policies and the disadvatanges of the competition.
Hmmm. . . this idea has potential. Won't happen, though.

[fallout]

I think the rights should be absolutely the same. Just as I can refuse dinner to anyone at my potluck supper at home, I should be allowed to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason no matter how inane it appears to the enlightened few.
You as a private individual have the right to think that.

Meanwhile, have you dropped your theory that most airports are publicly traded or privately held by individuals? I'm waiting for examples.

I never held that theory. You said "Many airports are publicly owned.". What did you mean by that?

I do believe that you do not have the "right" to hang out in an airport or behave in an airport as you see fit. I do not hold the belief that you have the right to get on a plane as you see fit. I am not sure what we are arguing about any more. Maybe we need to rewind.

:wave:

[fallout]

Airports have a natural monopoly, or near-monopoly. But it would be interesting if the airlines each could set their own security requirements. Do you think people would buy the ticket with the company that enforced "no bottled water"? "No guns"? "no baseball bats"? They could each advertise the advantages of their policies and the disadvatanges of the competition.
Hmmm. . . this idea has potential. Won't happen, though.

Given the product being sold is "transportation", your first statement is blatantly false.

[Guest]

Fine with what?That thing they told the dude about not wearing shirts with Arabic writing at the airport.

I wouldn't be fine a law banning Arabic tee shirts.

[fallout]

That thing they told the dude about not wearing shirts with Arabic writing at the airport.

I wouldn't be fine a law banning Arabic tee shirts.

Why not?

[Gandalf]

You as a private individual have the right to think that.

Meanwhile, have you dropped your theory that most airports are publicly traded or privately held by individuals? I'm waiting for examples.

I never held that theory. You said "Many airports are publicly owned.". What did you mean by that?

I do believe that you do not have the "right" to hang out in an airport or behave in an airport as you see fit. I do not hold the belief that you have the right to get on a plane as you see fit. I am not sure what we are arguing about any more. Maybe we need to rewind.

:wave:
By publicly owned, I meant owned by the government or government-owned entities. As you pointed out Publically owned (as in a stock company) is NOT public. Seriously, this is one of the most basic precepts we need to get passed so that we can discuss situations like this.
For some silly reason, that suggested to me you thought most airports were stock companies.

Who do you think owns most airports, and how does that affect your statements about what those owners should be able to do?

[Guest]

I wouldn't be fine a law banning Arabic tee shirts.

Why not?
Because it's over my arbitrary line.

[fallout]

Why not?
Because it's over my arbitrary line.

Your religion doesn't allow for it?

[Guest]

Your religion doesn't allow for it?

My personal understanding of the first amendment doesn't allow for it.

How about you? You cool with a law that bans Arabic writing on tee shirts?

[Griffin 1]

My personal understanding of the first amendment doesn't allow for it.What about the thing Pseud said about making an obvious "bomb" joke in an airport?

[fallout]

I never held that theory. You said "Many airports are publicly owned.". What did you mean by that?

I do believe that you do not have the "right" to hang out in an airport or behave in an airport as you see fit. I do not hold the belief that you have the right to get on a plane as you see fit. I am not sure what we are arguing about any more. Maybe we need to rewind.

:wave:
By publicly owned, I meant owned by the government or government-owned entities. As you pointed out Publically owned (as in a stock company) is NOT public. Seriously, this is one of the most basic precepts we need to get passed so that we can discuss situations like this.
For some silly reason, that suggested to me you thought most airports were stock companies.

Who do you think owns most airports, and how does that affect your statements about what those owners should be able to do?

Lets define some terms. Public = comapnies owned by the government. Publically owned = publically traded. Can we agree on these terms for future debate?

As for your question, I do not know. If I had to guess I would think most as in >50% of ariports are privately owned. Few of those would be the big ones.

A better question would be why is government in the airport business at all? It is farily ridiculous role for government.

Why are they not in the gas station business?

[Guest]

My personal understanding of the first amendment doesn't allow for it.What about the thing Pseud said about making an obvious "bomb" joke in an airport?

I didn't see it.

But my understanding of the 1st amendment is there are exceptions for obscenity and for speech that causes danger to others...I think a bomb threat at an airport might qualify as the latter.

[fallout]

Your religion doesn't allow for it?

My personal understanding of the first amendment doesn't allow for it.

How about you? You cool with a law that bans Arabic writing on tee shirts?

I am personally opposed to it, but I can see no reason why a law could not be passed doing exactly that, given the other laws already in existence.

[Griffin 1]

But my understanding of the 1st amendment is there are exceptions for obscenity and for speech that causes danger to others...I think a bomb threat at an airport might qualify as the latter.An obvious bomb joke <> a bomb threat

[fallout]

What about the thing Pseud said about making an obvious "bomb" joke in an airport?

I didn't see it.

But my understanding of the 1st amendment is there are exceptions for obscenity and for speech that causes danger to others...I think a bomb threat at an airport might qualify as the latter.

What if some less enlightened individuals see the arabic writing in the same vein as the bomb theat?

[Guest]

I am personally opposed to it, Why? Because of your religion? but I can see no reason why a law could not be passed doing exactly that, given the other laws already in existence.Irrlevant to my question.

[Fun King ded]

This is one of those threads that I hoped would spur discussion but ended up cluttered with the same bickering as usual. Is there an emoticon for this?

[Guest]

What if some less enlightened individuals see the arabic writing in the same vein as the bomb theat?
So what?

I oppose legislating to the stupidest common denominator...we've had far to many bad laws as a result of this already.

That would be why I prefer that intelligent, more enlightened individuals be the ones making the laws.

[Griffin 1]

This is one of those threads that I hoped would spur discussion but ended up cluttered with the same bickering as usual. Is there an emoticon for this?Why do you need an emoticon for everything? Wouldn't expressing your opinion with words suffice?

[Gandalf]

By publicly owned, I meant owned by the government or government-owned entities. As you pointed out Publically owned (as in a stock company) is NOT public. Seriously, this is one of the most basic precepts we need to get passed so that we can discuss situations like this.
For some silly reason, that suggested to me you thought most airports were stock companies.

Who do you think owns most airports, and how does that affect your statements about what those owners should be able to do?

Lets define some terms. Public = comapnies owned by the government. Publically owned = publically traded. Can we agree on these terms for future debate?

As for your question, I do not know. If I had to guess I would think most as in >50% of ariports are privately owned. Few of those would be the big ones.

A better question would be why is government in the airport business at all? It is farily ridiculous role for government.

Why are they not in the gas station business?
Maybe I'll remember your definitions. I plan to use publicly traded, not publicly owned, when I mean publicly traded.

This incident happened at JFK. Do you think it is public or private? What owners should be determining whether shirts with arabic writing are ok at JFK airport, given its actual ownership as opposed to who you think ought to own it.

[fallout]

Why? Because of your religion? but I can see no reason why a law could not be passed doing exactly that, given the other laws already in existence.Irrlevant to my question.

Nope, because I am opposed to government intervention in anything like this.

My beliefs include as little government intervention into my life as possible. Yours seems to be to have the government intervene as much as you find morally acceptable. This is different.

[fallout]

What if some less enlightened individuals see the arabic writing in the same vein as the bomb theat?
So what?

I oppose legislating to the stupidest common denominator...we've had far to many bad laws as a result of this already.

That would be why I prefer that intelligent, more enlightened individuals be the ones making the laws.

:lol:

Yeah, we should not let the people decide. Let the scholars dictate.

:lol:

[Fun King ded]

This is one of those threads that I hoped would spur discussion but ended up cluttered with the same bickering as usual. Is there an emoticon for this?Why do you need an emoticon for everything? Wouldn't expressing your opinion with words suffice?

I hate words. I hate typing them out. I never know what to say. Give me a canned response so I don't have to think please.

[Griffin 1]

This incident happened at JFK. Do you think it is public or private? What owners should be determining whether shirts with arabic writing are ok at JFK airport, given its actual ownership as opposed to who you think ought to own it.Do airlines rent terminals and ticket counters from the airports? Are airlines public whatevers or private whatevers?

[Griffin 1]

I hate words. I hate typing them out. I never know what to say. Give me a canned response so I don't have to think please.What you need is an organized collection of information that allows you to enter new emotional responses as they come to you. Then whenever you post, you can select from one of the prior responses, or enter a new one if none of those fit.

[Pseudolus]

That would be why I prefer that intelligent, more enlightened individuals be the ones making the laws.
I agree. But my set of intelligent, enlightened indivduals is likely rather different from your set of intelligent, enlightened individuals. How should we choose which set should rule? I know! Just get a group of intelligent, enlightened individuals to decide.

[Griffin 1]

That would be why I prefer that intelligent, more enlightened individuals be the ones making the laws.They tried that on the Simpsons and it didn't work.

[fallout]

By publicly owned, I meant owned by the government or government-owned entities. As you pointed out
For some silly reason, that suggested to me you thought most airports were stock companies.

Who do you think owns most airports, and how does that affect your statements about what those owners should be able to do?

Lets define some terms. Public = comapnies owned by the government. Publically owned = publically traded. Can we agree on these terms for future debate?

As for your question, I do not know. If I had to guess I would think most as in >50% of ariports are privately owned. Few of those would be the big ones.

A better question would be why is government in the airport business at all? It is farily ridiculous role for government.

Why are they not in the gas station business?
Maybe I'll remember your definitions. I plan to use publicly traded, not publicly owned, when I mean publicly traded.

This incident happened at JFK. Do you think it is public or private? What owners should be determining whether shirts with arabic writing are ok at JFK airport, given its actual ownership as opposed to who you think ought to own it.


I think that since he was not refused entry to the airport based on his shirt, and since he was not stopped at the TSA (government security) based on his shirt, this was not a problem.

Since he was stopped from getting on Jet Blue's plane (A private company) with the shirt, that those involved all acted well within their rights.

This, IMO, is an example of how freedom should work. Private companies set their rules and if passengers don't like it, they can opt out.

[HangerAngler]

What if some less enlightened individuals see the arabic writing in the same vein as the bomb theat?
So what?

I oppose legislating to the stupidest common denominator...we've had far to many bad laws as a result of this already.

That would be why I prefer that intelligent, more enlightened individuals be the ones making the laws.

I am right with you on the bolded part.

[Guest]

I agree. But my set of intelligent, enlightened indivduals is likely rather different from your set of intelligent, enlightened individuals. How should we choose which set should rule? I know! Just get a group of intelligent, enlightened individuals to decide.Or lets have a group of people who are schooled and educated in the intricacies of the Constitution make judgements regarding the appropriateness of laws. Sometimes I won't agree with their decisions, but I'd bet they never allow the outlawing of Arabic writing on tee shirts.

[Griffin 1]

Or lets have a group of people who are schooled and educated in the intricacies of the Constitution make judgements regarding the appropriateness of laws. Sometimes I won't agree with their decisions, but I'd bet they never allow the outlawing of Arabic writing on tee shirts.We already have that (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/).

[Lucy]

I think that was her point.

[Guest]

I think that was her point.

Thanks, Luce...it's nice that someone gives me a little credit.

[Griffin 1]

I think that was her point.Then what is the basis of her complaint?

[fallout]

I agree. But my set of intelligent, enlightened indivduals is likely rather different from your set of intelligent, enlightened individuals. How should we choose which set should rule? I know! Just get a group of intelligent, enlightened individuals to decide.Or lets have a group of people who are schooled and educated in the intricacies of the Constitution make judgements regarding the appropriateness of laws. Sometimes I won't agree with their decisions, but I'd bet they never allow the outlawing of Arabic writing on tee shirts.

I dunno. Sometimes these people ignore the constitution and pull stuff out of their asses to m ake decisions.

Look at the texas DP case where they considered "international opinion", or the AA case where they considered "diversity". Neither of those concepts appear in the constitution.

[Guest]

I think that was her point.Then what is the basis of her complaint?

My whole point was - I don't give a crap if unenlightened people think that Arabic writing equates a bomb threat, unless those people are making the laws, and even then it's cool unless those people are on the supreme court. It was a stupid point because we have checks to make sure stupid laws don't stand, and many times they actually work. When they don't work, I'll worry about it.

[fallout]

Then what is the basis of her complaint?

My whole point was - I don't give a crap if unenlightened people think that Arabic writing equates a bomb threat, unless those people are making the laws, and even then it's cool unless those people are on the supreme court. It was a stupid point because we have checks to make sure stupid laws don't stand, and many times they actually work. When they don't work, I'll worry about it.


What if they are the customers of a business that feels the business will be hurt if they did not do as the customers asked?

[Guest]

Yeah, we should not let the people decide. Let the scholars dictate.

What do you think happens now?

We live in a Republic, not a democracy.

[Griffin 1]

My whole point was - I don't give a crap if unenlightened people think that Arabic writing equates a bomb threat, unless those people are making the laws, and even then it's cool unless those people are on the supreme court. It was a stupid point because we have checks to make sure stupid laws don't stand, and many times they actually work. When they don't work, I'll worry about it.If enlightened people think that Arabic writing equates a bomb threat (which, apparantly, equates to an obvious bomb joke), then what would be your basis for determining that the law is stupid?

[Griffin 1]

We live in a Republic, not a democracy.Have we covered this one before?

[fallout]

Yeah, we should not let the people decide. Let the scholars dictate.

What do you think happens now?

We live in a Republic, not a democracy.

I agree.

In this case, it appears that many customers were not happy with the t-shirt and the business reacted accordingly. No laws were needed. Private enterprise worked as it should, and no enlightened scholars were called in to dictate.

Sweet when things work as they are supposed to.

[Guest]

My beliefs include as little government intervention into my life as possible. Yours seems to be to have the government intervene as much as you find morally acceptable. This is different.
:lol: Don't kid yourself, you're no different than anyone else.

Your belief that government should interfere at little as possible is a measure of your what your version of morality accepts.

Deal with it, you're just like the rest of biased, emotional, religious humanity.

[Guest]

If enlightened people think that Arabic writing equates a bomb threat (which, apparantly, equates to an obvious bomb joke), then what would be your basis for determining that the law is stupid?

As I said before, my subjective line. Why is this so difficult?

[Griffin 1]

As I said before, my subjective line. Why is this so difficult?It's not. But it is worth repeating.

[fallout]

My beliefs include as little government intervention into my life as possible. Yours seems to be to have the government intervene as much as you find morally acceptable. This is different.
:lol: Don't kid yourself, you're no different than anyone else.

Your belief that government should interfere at little as possible is a measure of your what your version of morality accepts.

Deal with it, you're just like the rest of biased, emotional, religious humanity.

I agree that I use my morality to make decisions on things. The difference I perceive is when you have a large group with the same morals, almost across the board, we call these things religions.

Christians are grouped by morals which they get from the bible.
Liberals (in America) use the NY Times in much the same way.

If you can find a group that believes as I do on almost all issues, call me one of them.

Perhaps libertarianism is my religion, but that word has been perverted somewhat by the Libertarian party.

[Guest]

I agree that I use my morality to make decisions on things. The difference I perceive is when you have a large group with the same morals, almost across the board, we call these things religions.What's your point? Being a member of a religion is a bad thing or something?

When I say "my subjective line says so," that's me acknowledging that this is a personal opinion, perhaps unexplored as of yet. but that doens't make it less valid than yours.

[Guest]

As I said before, my subjective line. Why is this so difficult?It's not. But it is worth repeating.

Why?

[fallout]

I agree that I use my morality to make decisions on things. The difference I perceive is when you have a large group with the same morals, almost across the board, we call these things religions.What's your point? Being a member of a religion is a bad thing or something?

When I say "my subjective line says so," that's me acknowledging that this is a personal opinion, perhaps unexplored as of yet. but that doens't make it less valid than yours.

Absolutely not. It's just funny when people (mostly liberals) get their backs up and oppose and laws based on religion. :lol:

Your opinions are perfectly valid. (quite often wrong - but hey, that's your right :wink: ).

I simply find it funny when other people get blasted for using their personal morality to make laws, simply because of where they formed those opinions.

[Guest]

Absolutely not. It's just funny when people (mostly liberals) get their backs up and oppose and laws based on religion. :lol:

Your opinions are perfectly valid. (quite often wrong - but hey, that's your right :wink: ).

I simply find it funny when other people get blasted for using their personal morality to make laws, simply because of where they formed those opinions.
Well, to be honest there are times when I would get upset if I law were based on religion, such as if, say...I had to convert to Islam or Christianity or something, of if I was not allowed to wear a tee shirt with sanskrit or a picture of Buddha or something on it. That would be bad, I think most reasonable people agree.

[fallout]

Absolutely not. It's just funny when people (mostly liberals) get their backs up and oppose and laws based on religion. :lol:

Your opinions are perfectly valid. (quite often wrong - but hey, that's your right :wink: ).

I simply find it funny when other people get blasted for using their personal morality to make laws, simply because of where they formed those opinions.
Well, to be honest there are times when I would get upset if I law were based on religion, such as if, say...I had to convert to Islam or Christianity or something, of if I was not allowed to wear a tee shirt with sanskrit or a picture of Buddha or something on it. That would be bad, I think most reasonable people agree.


Or not be allowed to go topless or burn crosses or stuff?

[Guest]

Or not be allowed to go topless or burn crosses or stuff?

Those are all "fine lines."

Going topless - who cares. It doesn't mean that much to me.

Burning crosses shouldn't be a crime. Intimidating people should (and is.)

[fallout]

Or not be allowed to go topless or burn crosses or stuff?

Those are all "fine lines."

Going topless - who cares. It doesn't mean that much to me.

Burning crosses shouldn't be a crime. Intimidating people should (and is.)

Burning crosses scares people. Arabic script on a shirt scares people (at least those anxious enough to call in to the desk to complain about it). How is one intimidation and the other free speech?

Because being afraid of arabic script is not "really" intimidation?

:judge:

[fallout]

Going topless - who cares. It doesn't mean that much to me.



As an aside. How you doing? :toast:

[Guest]

Burning crosses scares people. In some contexts, sure. Arabic script on a shirt scares people (at least those anxious enough to call in to the desk to complain about it). How is one intimidation and the other free speech? Because one has a reasonable historical context, and the other doesn't.

I have a feeling we've talking about this before.

Laws address generalities. Generalities aren't true in every case. We can only rely on what's reasonable. I'm willing to bet that reaonable people agree that, as of yet, Arabic script on a tee shirt is not generally considered a thraet.

[Guest]

As an aside. How you doing? :toast:

You used to be anti-flirting in political, you know. ;)

[fallout]

As an aside. How you doing? :toast:

You used to be anti-flirting in political, you know. ;)

That was before you went topless.

:tup:

[fallout]

In some contexts, sure. Arabic script on a shirt scares people (at least those anxious enough to call in to the desk to complain about it). How is one intimidation and the other free speech? Because one has a reasonable historical context, and the other doesn't.

I have a feeling we've talking about this before.

Laws address generalities. Generalities aren't true in every case. We can only rely on what's reasonable. I'm willing to bet that reaonable people agree that, as of yet, Arabic script on a tee shirt is not generally considered a thraet.

So the numerous people that called the desk to complain were simply unreasonable? They weren't "really" intimidated? Maybe they were all racists?

[Guest]

So the numerous people that called the desk to complain were simply unreasonable? They weren't "really" intimidated? Maybe they were all racists?IMO, yes. If his behavior was intimidating, that's one thing. If he had a weapon, or resisted security, fine. But wearing a teeshirt? come on. IMO, that's very small minded and I'm sad that Muslim/Arabs have to put up with that kind of crap. It's about as bad as people who are afraid to go into urban areas because there are black people there.

[fallout]

So the numerous people that called the desk to complain were simply unreasonable? They weren't "really" intimidated? Maybe they were all racists?IMO, yes. If his behavior was intimidating, that's one thing. If he had a weapon, or resisted security, fine. But wearing a teeshirt? come on. IMO, that's very small minded and I'm sad that Muslim/Arabs have to put up with that kind of crap. It's about as bad as people who are afraid to go into urban areas because there are black people there.

What if he wore a t-shirt with a picture of a burning cross on it? Or a swastika on it and hung out around a synagogue?

It's just a t-shirt right? "reasonable people" can't be intimidated by that right?

[Griffin 1]

What if the t-shirt said "bomb"?

[Gandalf]

IMO, yes. If his behavior was intimidating, that's one thing. If he had a weapon, or resisted security, fine. But wearing a teeshirt? come on. IMO, that's very small minded and I'm sad that Muslim/Arabs have to put up with that kind of crap. It's about as bad as people who are afraid to go into urban areas because there are black people there.

What if he wore a t-shirt with a picture of a burning cross on it? Or a swastika on it and hung out around a synagogue?

It's just a t-shirt right? "reasonable people" can't be intimidated by that right?
I could be wrong, but I think reasonable people would recognize a shirt with a picture of a burning cross as support for the KKK and a shirt with a swastika as support for Nazis. I do not think a shirt with Arabic characters represents support for terrorists. Do you? (You might wonder if it does, but do you think it does?)

[Griffin 1]

I could be wrong, but I think reasonable people would recognize a shirt with a picture of a burning cross as support for the KKK and a shirt with a swastika as support for Nazis. I do not think a shirt with Arabic characters represents support for terrorists. Do you? (You might wonder if it does, but do you think it does?)I could be wrong, but it's not illegal in the US to associate with either the KKK or the Nazis.

[fallout]

What if he wore a t-shirt with a picture of a burning cross on it? Or a swastika on it and hung out around a synagogue?

It's just a t-shirt right? "reasonable people" can't be intimidated by that right?
I could be wrong, but I think reasonable people would recognize a shirt with a picture of a burning cross as support for the KKK and a shirt with a swastika as support for Nazis. I do not think a shirt with Arabic characters represents support for terrorists. Do you? (You might wonder if it does, but do you think it does?)

I do not think that arabic characters show support for terrorism.

Do you think someone that is intimidated to get onto a plane with someone who has arabic letters on his shirt is a racist, or just concerned?

As an aside, wlould anyone complaining about the swastika or the burning cross on a shirt be acting unreasonable? Since only a subset of those in the KKK or the Nazis did bodily harm to those groups they antagonized?

[Griffin 1]

As an aside, wlould anyone complaining about the swastika or the burning cross on a shirt be acting unreasonable? Since only a subset of those in the KKK or the Nazis did bodily harm to those groups they antagonized?How many airplanes have the KKK and Nazis hijacked anyway?

[fallout]

As an aside, wlould anyone complaining about the swastika or the burning cross on a shirt be acting unreasonable? Since only a subset of those in the KKK or the Nazis did bodily harm to those groups they antagonized?How many airplanes have the KKK and Nazis hijacked anyway?

I dunno. 23?

[Gandalf]

I could be wrong, but I think reasonable people would recognize a shirt with a picture of a burning cross as support for the KKK and a shirt with a swastika as support for Nazis. I do not think a shirt with Arabic characters represents support for terrorists. Do you? (You might wonder if it does, but do you think it does?)I could be wrong, but it's not illegal in the US to associate with either the KKK or the Nazis.
I think you are right about that, but apparently it is illegal to go to JFK wearing a shirt that says "I support the KKK" or "I support the Nazis" in Arabic characters.

[Griffin 1]

I think you are right about that, but apparently it is illegal to go to JFK wearing a shirt that says "I support the KKK" or "I support the Nazis" in Arabic characters.Not according to Malik's article.

[fallout]

I could be wrong, but it's not illegal in the US to associate with either the KKK or the Nazis.
I think you are right about that, but apparently it is illegal to go to JFK wearing a shirt that says "I support the KKK" or "I support the Nazis" in Arabic characters.

How far do you think the guy with "bomb" on his shirt would have made it?

[Gandalf]

I think you are right about that, but apparently it is illegal to go to JFK wearing a shirt that says "I support the KKK" or "I support the Nazis" in Arabic characters.Not according to Malik's article.
From Malik's article Then I once again asked the three of them : "How come you are asking me to change my t-shirt? Isn't this my constitutional right to wear it? I am ready to change it if you tell me why I should. Do you have an order against Arabic t-shirts? Is there such a law against Arabic script?" so inspector Harris answered "you can't wear a t-shirt with Arabic script and come to an airport. It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads "I am a robber" and going to a bank".
Inspector Harris seems to say it is illegal, unless you want to quibble about technicalities instead of substance. I will agree Inspector Harris could be and almost certainly is wrong.

[Guest]

What if he wore a t-shirt with a picture of a burning cross on it? Or a swastika on it and hung out around a synagogue?

It's just a t-shirt right? "reasonable people" can't be intimidated by that right?

Right.

I don't think reasonable people are intimidated by clothing..

[Griffin 1]

I will agree Inspector Harris could be and almost certainly is wrong.So make up your mind.

[Harry]

:lol: Don't kid yourself, you're no different than anyone else.

Your belief that government should interfere at little as possible is a measure of your what your version of morality accepts.

Deal with it, you're just like the rest of biased, emotional, religious humanity.

Christians are grouped by morals which they get from the bible.
Liberals (in America) use the NY Times in much the same way.


I can't believe all the Christians around here don't find this insulting.

[SirVLCIV]

You as a private individual have the right to think that.

Meanwhile, have you dropped your theory that most airports are publicly traded or privately held by individuals? I'm waiting for examples.

I never held that theory. You said "Many airports are publicly owned.". What did you mean by that?

I do believe that you do not have the "right" to hang out in an airport or behave in an airport as you see fit. I do not hold the belief that you have the right to get on a plane as you see fit. I am not sure what we are arguing about any more. Maybe we need to rewind.

:wave:

I don't know about a list of who owns what, but I do know the Port Authority owns and operates Newark Airport. Also:

"The Port Authority is a financially self-supporting public agency that receives no tax revenues from any state or local jurisdiction and has no power to tax. It relies almost entirely on revenues generated by facility users, tolls, fees, and rents. The Governor of each state appoints six members to the Board of Commissioners, subject to state senate approval. Board Members serve as public officials without pay for overlapping six-year terms. The Governors retain the right to veto the actions of Commissioners from his or her own state. Board meetings are public.

The Board of Commissioners appoints an Executive Director to carry out the agency's policies and manage the day-to-day operations."

I don't know much about how a 'public agency' is governed in the eye of city/state/federal law, but do you, fallout, believe a 'public agency' has the right to dictate what languages can and can not be portrayed on a shirt you choose to wear?

Edit: the Port Authority owns and operates JFK also.

[Gandalf]

I will agree Inspector Harris could be and almost certainly is wrong.So make up your mind.I could make up my mind, but I'm not a person charged with enforcing laws at JFK. If the cops treat certain activity as illegal, you may well find yourself unable to do it, even if you might have some later recourse against the cops.

[Griffin 1]

I could make up my mind, but I'm not a person charged with enforcing laws at JFK. If the cops treat certain activity as illegal, you may well find yourself unable to do it, even if you might have some later recourse against the cops.It's too bad every cop in America can't make a non-life-threatening judgement call with 100% accuracy every single time to Gandalf's satisfaction. Insert rolly eye thing.

[fallout]

I never held that theory. You said "Many airports are publicly owned.". What did you mean by that?

I do believe that you do not have the "right" to hang out in an airport or behave in an airport as you see fit. I do not hold the belief that you have the right to get on a plane as you see fit. I am not sure what we are arguing about any more. Maybe we need to rewind.

:wave:

I don't know about a list of who owns what, but I do know the Port Authority owns and operates Newark Airport. Also:

"The Port Authority is a financially self-supporting public agency that receives no tax revenues from any state or local jurisdiction and has no power to tax. It relies almost entirely on revenues generated by facility users, tolls, fees, and rents. The Governor of each state appoints six members to the Board of Commissioners, subject to state senate approval. Board Members serve as public officials without pay for overlapping six-year terms. The Governors retain the right to veto the actions of Commissioners from his or her own state. Board meetings are public.

The Board of Commissioners appoints an Executive Director to carry out the agency's policies and manage the day-to-day operations."

I don't know much about how a 'public agency' is governed in the eye of city/state/federal law, but do you, fallout, believe a 'public agency' has the right to dictate what languages can and can not be portrayed on a shirt you choose to wear?

Edit: the Port Authority owns and operates JFK also.

I believe that the port authority has not only the right, but the obligation to ensure that the passengers on the flights that are being handled from one of it's "ports", feel secure and comfortable. I think they can ban any sort of item they find offensive, scary and/or dangerous. Ex... they can ban speaking of bombs at the gate so of course they can ban writing on a shirt of any sort they see fit.

I absolutely, unequivocably believe they have the right to control the clothing of the individuals that use theit facilities.

They can take away your nail clippers for God's sake.

[Guest]

I absolutely, unequivocably believe they have the right to control the clothing of the individuals that use theit facilities.

They can take away your nail clippers for God's sake.

But, since you think the Port Authority should interfere as little as possible with our lives, why are you so accepting of this? Why is one person's right to "feel comfortable" more important than another's to wear a tee shirt? Maybe he's more comfortable in that tee shirt!.

[Griffin 1]

Did we ever figure out what happens if the t-shirt says "BOMB!"

[Gandalf]

Inspector Harris has a meltdown.

Seriously, I suspect that if the shirt said "I have a bomb", you would be arrested if you tried to go through screening, just as if you had said "I have a bomb." I suspect a shirt saying "Bomb" is the same, but IANAS (screener). I don't know security rules well enough to know if it would be ok outside the secured area. I don't plan to try it.

[Griffin 1]

Seriously, I suspect that if the shirt said "I have a bomb", you would be arrested if you tried to go through screening, just as if you had said "I have a bomb." I suspect a shirt saying "Bomb" is the same, but IANAS (screener). I don't know security rules well enough to know if it would be ok outside the secured area. I don't plan to try it.So the rules in the airport don't have to match the rules out on the street.

[fallout]

I absolutely, unequivocably believe they have the right to control the clothing of the individuals that use theit facilities.

They can take away your nail clippers for God's sake.

But, since you think the Port Authority should interfere as little as possible with our lives, why are you so accepting of this? Why is one person's right to "feel comfortable" more important than another's to wear a tee shirt? Maybe he's more comfortable in that tee shirt!.

They have the right to <> they should. You know this right?

If they exercise these types of rights too often, I choose to fly less or not to fly.

As for comfort levels and such, I let the private airline decide what is appropriate for their flights. I also support letting restaurants and night clubs set their own dress codes etc...

[fallout]

Seriously, I suspect that if the shirt said "I have a bomb", you would be arrested if you tried to go through screening, just as if you had said "I have a bomb." I suspect a shirt saying "Bomb" is the same, but IANAS (screener). I don't know security rules well enough to know if it would be ok outside the secured area. I don't plan to try it.So the rules in the airport don't have to match the rules out on the street.

What a radical concept.

[SirVLCIV]

I don't know about a list of who owns what, but I do know the Port Authority owns and operates Newark Airport. Also:

"The Port Authority is a financially self-supporting public agency that receives no tax revenues from any state or local jurisdiction and has no power to tax. It relies almost entirely on revenues generated by facility users, tolls, fees, and rents. The Governor of each state appoints six members to the Board of Commissioners, subject to state senate approval. Board Members serve as public officials without pay for overlapping six-year terms. The Governors retain the right to veto the actions of Commissioners from his or her own state. Board meetings are public.

The Board of Commissioners appoints an Executive Director to carry out the agency's policies and manage the day-to-day operations."

I don't know much about how a 'public agency' is governed in the eye of city/state/federal law, but do you, fallout, believe a 'public agency' has the right to dictate what languages can and can not be portrayed on a shirt you choose to wear?

Edit: the Port Authority owns and operates JFK also.

I believe that the port authority has not only the right, but the obligation to ensure that the passengers on the flights that are being handled from one of it's "ports", feel secure and comfortable. I think they can ban any sort of item they find offensive, scary and/or dangerous. Ex... they can ban speaking of bombs at the gate so of course they can ban writing on a shirt of any sort they see fit.

I absolutely, unequivocably believe they have the right to control the clothing of the individuals that use theit facilities.

They can take away your nail clippers for God's sake.

I disagree with you.

[Guest]

But, since you think the Port Authority should interfere as little as possible with our lives, why are you so accepting of this? Why is one person's right to "feel comfortable" more important than another's to wear a tee shirt? Maybe he's more comfortable in that tee shirt!.

They have the right to <> they should. You know this right? I never have a clue what you're arguing.

Do you think this governmental agency did the right thing here, or not?

Before, your argument was that the government should make laws controlling private industry. Now, you're saying the government (the Port Authority, in this case) has the right to control what people are wearing? Which is it?

If they exercise these types of rights too often, I choose to fly less or not to fly.
Flying less or not at all isn't an option for everyone.

[Eimon Gnome]

But, since you think the Port Authority should interfere as little as possible with our lives, why are you so accepting of this? Why is one person's right to "feel comfortable" more important than another's to wear a tee shirt? Maybe he's more comfortable in that tee shirt!.

They have the right to <> they should. You know this right?

If they exercise these types of rights too often, I choose to fly less or not to fly.

As for comfort levels and such, I let the private airline decide what is appropriate for their flights. I also support letting restaurants and night clubs set their own dress codes etc...
It is a hard one. Should an Airline have the "right" to use a landing strip not governed by the HS, or the FAA?
As in: "hey, we want to do things differently, and we tell our passengers that they run the risk of hi jacking, but we allow all sorts of stuff in the carry on. We charge a little more, but our lines are short and the baggage claim is a snap."

[Lucy]

It is a hard one. Should an Airline have the "right" to use a landing strip not governed by the HS, or the FAA?
As in: "hey, we want to do things differently, and we tell our passengers that they run the risk of hi jacking, but we allow all sorts of stuff in the carry on. We charge a little more, but our lines are short and the baggage claim is a snap."I'm pretty sure they don't have that right. Although private jets and corporate jets don't follow FAA security rules, and do have short lines and easy baggage claim (and high prices.) "Public accomodations" follow public rules, which is why it's silly to cliam this is all about Jet Blue.

[fallout]

It is a hard one. Should an Airline have the "right" to use a landing strip not governed by the HS, or the FAA?
As in: "hey, we want to do things differently, and we tell our passengers that they run the risk of hi jacking, but we allow all sorts of stuff in the carry on. We charge a little more, but our lines are short and the baggage claim is a snap."I'm pretty sure they don't have that right. Although private jets and corporate jets don't follow FAA security rules, and do have short lines and easy baggage claim (and high prices.) "Public accomodations" follow public rules, which is why it's silly to cliam this is all about Jet Blue.

The guy with the shirt who is doing the complaining is silly?

[fallout]

They have the right to <> they should. You know this right? I never have a clue what you're arguing.

Do you think this governmental agency did the right thing here, or not?

Before, your argument was that the government should make laws controlling private industry. Now, you're saying the government (the Port Authority, in this case) has the right to control what people are wearing? Which is it?

If they exercise these types of rights too often, I choose to fly less or not to fly.
Flying less or not at all isn't an option for everyone.

I think the government agency did the right thing by providing security for Jet Blue that asked this guy to change his shirt.

I think Jet Blue did the right thing by asking the guy to change his shirt since it was apparent that their customer base was not happy with the shirt and the fre market dictated he change it.

I even think the guy with the shirt did the right thing, by changing his shirt and speaking out against a Jet Blue policy he disagreed with.

Freedom for all.

:toast:

Also, of course the port authority has the right to police it's airports as it sees fit. If they do not, they get sued. If they do, they get blamed.

Do you think they should be responsible if bombs make it onto planes? Or even worse, if toenail clippers and hair gels make it on the plane?

[fallout]

Flying less or not at all isn't an option for everyone.

Of course it is.

Name one person you know that is being force flown around.

:rolleyes:

[Gandalf]

Also, of course the port authority has the right to police it's airports as it sees fit. If they do not, they get sued. If they do, they get blamed.
Where do you get that ridiculous idea? Could Los Angeles decide as a matter of policy that beating civilians is OK? If the port authority decided that the best way to police its airport is to allow only white males inside, is that their right?

[fallout]

Also, of course the port authority has the right to police it's airports as it sees fit. If they do not, they get sued. If they do, they get blamed.
Where do you get that ridiculous idea? Could Los Angeles decide as a matter of policy that beating civilians is OK? If the port authority decided that the best way to police its airport is to allow only white males inside, is that their right?

:rolleyes:

Do you really find this question interesting enough to receive a response, because if you do, I will answer it, and in the process, my view of your worth as a poster would change quite a lot.

Let me know.

[Gandalf]

Also, of course the port authority has the right to police it's airports as it sees fit. If they do not, they get sued. If they do, they get blamed.
Where do you get that ridiculous idea? Could Los Angeles decide as a matter of policy that beating civilians is OK? If the port authority decided that the best way to police its airport is to allow only white males inside, is that their right?

:rolleyes:

Do you really find this question interesting enough to receive a response, because if you do, I will answer it, and in the process, my view of your worth as a poster would change quite a lot.

Let me know.
Do you really believe the statement you posted that I bolded? If you do, then you should answer the specific questions I asked. If you realize the statement you posted was absurd, then there is no reason for you to address the extreme counterexamples.

[fallout]

Where do you get that ridiculous idea? Could Los Angeles decide as a matter of policy that beating civilians is OK? If the port authority decided that the best way to police its airport is to allow only white males inside, is that their right?

:rolleyes:

Do you really find this question interesting enough to receive a response, because if you do, I will answer it, and in the process, my view of your worth as a poster would change quite a lot.

Let me know.
Do you really believe the statement you posted that I bolded? If you do, then you should answer the specific questions I asked. If you realize the statement you posted was absurd, then there is no reason for you to address the extreme counterexamples.


I do believe my statement.

[Gandalf]

I do believe my statement.
Then, regardless of what it will do to your opinion of my worth as a poster, please answer "If the port authority decided that the best way to police its airport is to allow only white males inside, is that their right?", and if the answer is "no", please explain how that is consistent with the statement I bolded above, which you believe.

[fallout]

I do believe my statement.
Then, regardless of what it will do to your opinion of my worth as a poster, please answer "If the port authority decided that the best way to police its airport is to allow only white males inside, is that their right?", and if the answer is "no", please explain how that is consistent with the statement I bolded above, which you believe.


Having the authority to police does not mean you can ignore all other applicable state and federal laws.

i.e. hanging every 4th customer would also be over the line (in case that was your next serious question).

:rolleyes:

[Gandalf]

Then, regardless of what it will do to your opinion of my worth as a poster, please answer "If the port authority decided that the best way to police its airport is to allow only white males inside, is that their right?", and if the answer is "no", please explain how that is consistent with the statement I bolded above, which you believe.


Having the authority to police does not mean you can ignore all other applicable state and federal laws.

i.e. hanging every 4th customer would also be over the line (in case that was your next serious question).

:rolleyes:
No, once you change your statement to say that it has the authority to police as it sees fit within the restriction of applicable state and federal laws we are in agreement. That is a rather important restriction. From the beginning, when I challenged your original statement I gave examples where it did not have the right without restriction, and you continued to support your statement without qualification.

This whole thread, in case you missed it, is about what restrictions apply to government representatives (though there may be some question about whether the people were in fact government representatives) trying to do their jobs as they see fit.

[fallout]

Having the authority to police does not mean you can ignore all other applicable state and federal laws.

i.e. hanging every 4th customer would also be over the line (in case that was your next serious question).

:rolleyes:
No, once you change your statement to say that it has the authority to police as it sees fit within the restriction of applicable state and federal laws we are in agreement. That is a rather important restriction. From the beginning, when I challenged your original statement I gave examples where it did not have the right without restriction, and you continued to support your statement without qualification.

This whole thread, in case you missed it, is about what restrictions apply to government representatives (though there may be some question about whether the people were in fact government representatives) trying to do their jobs as they see fit.

Should we also add in a provision thata they cannot run their airport while it is on fire? Under water? In a vacuum? :rolleyes:

I think any statement you read would require at least a 20 page appendix if you need something as basic as this explicitly explained.

[Gandalf]

I think any statement you read would require at least a 20 page appendix if you need something as basic as this explicitly explained.And similarly I suppose no one could object to the statement that "Bush has the right to intercept phone calls of American citizens" or "Bush has the right to detain prisoners without trial or access to lawyers at Guantanemo" or "Airlines have the right to choose whom they will transport" or "Companies have the right to choose whether to make their facilities accessible to the blind" because it's understood that all those rights are subject to applicable state and federal laws. :roll: Even if challenged, the statements remain fine without qualification. :roll:

[fallout]

I think any statement you read would require at least a 20 page appendix if you need something as basic as this explicitly explained.And similarly I suppose no one could object to the statement that "Bush has the right to intercept phone calls of American citizens" or "Bush has the right to detain prisoners without trial or access to lawyers at Guantanemo" or "Airlines have the right to choose whom they will transport" or "Companies have the right to choose whether to make their facilities accessible to the blind" because it's understood that all those rights are subject to applicable state and federal laws. :roll: Even if challenged, the statements remain fine without qualification. :roll:

IMO, these two: "Airlines have the right to choose whom they will transport" or "Companies have the right to choose whether to make their facilities accessible to the blind" should be absolute with zero qualifications.

:toast:

[Lucy]

And similarly I suppose no one could object to the statement that "Bush has the right to intercept phone calls of American citizens" or "Bush has the right to detain prisoners without trial or access to lawyers at Guantanemo" or "Airlines have the right to choose whom they will transport" or "Companies have the right to choose whether to make their facilities accessible to the blind" because it's understood that all those rights are subject to applicable state and federal laws. :roll: Even if challenged, the statements remain fine without qualification. :roll:

IMO, these two: "Airlines have the right to choose whom they will transport" or "Companies have the right to choose whether to make their facilities accessible to the blind" should be absolute with zero qualifications.

:toast:Maybe you think that should be the case, but it happens that it's not the case. And some of us were talking about the real world, not Fallout's Fantasy Land. In the real world, Americans have a constiutional right to free speech, but there are various exceptions and occassions when that right is limited. We were discussing whether the discomfort of some ignorant people in an airport is an appropriate reason to deny a man the right to wear a t-shirt with an otherwise acceptable statement printed in Arabic.

And in case you haven't figured it out, an "airport" is a very special place, where lots of special rules apply. Some of them increase the freedom of random visitors (it is considered a public accomodation) and others decrease that freedom (it is consided extremely sensitive from a security position). So the issue of t-shirt-man is not completely clear cut. In the real world, that is.

[fallout]

IMO, these two: "Airlines have the right to choose whom they will transport" or "Companies have the right to choose whether to make their facilities accessible to the blind" should be absolute with zero qualifications.

:toast:Maybe you think that should be the case, but it happens that it's not the case. And some of us were talking about the real world, not Fallout's Fantasy Land. In the real world, Americans have a constiutional right to free speech, but there are various exceptions and occassions when that right is limited. We were discussing whether the discomfort of some ignorant people in an airport is an appropriate reason to deny a man the right to wear a t-shirt with an otherwise acceptable statement printed in Arabic.

And in case you haven't figured it out, an "airport" is a very special place, where lots of special rules apply. Some of them increase the freedom of random visitors (it is considered a public accomodation) and others decrease that freedom (it is consided extremely sensitive from a security position). So the issue of t-shirt-man is not completely clear cut. In the real world, that is.


Which is why I specifically mentioned how I wanted the world to work and not that this is how it actually works.

I love how those that felt intimidated were ignorant. Does this also apply when minorities feel intimidated, or only when it is minorities doing the intimidating? i.e. would ta guy wearing a swastika outside a temple being removed be considered the work of ignorants? Would the guy with a KKK cloak on outside an inner city school be considered as exercising his free speech rights and those offended or intimidated by it be called ignorant by you?

Please explain "Some of them increase the freedom of random visitors." Thanks.

[Lucy]

Maybe you think that should be the case, but it happens that it's not the case. And some of us were talking about the real world, not Fallout's Fantasy Land. In the real world, Americans have a constiutional right to free speech, but there are various exceptions and occassions when that right is limited. We were discussing whether the discomfort of some ignorant people in an airport is an appropriate reason to deny a man the right to wear a t-shirt with an otherwise acceptable statement printed in Arabic.

And in case you haven't figured it out, an "airport" is a very special place, where lots of special rules apply. Some of them increase the freedom of random visitors (it is considered a public accomodation) and others decrease that freedom (it is consided extremely sensitive from a security position). So the issue of t-shirt-man is not completely clear cut. In the real world, that is.


Which is why I specifically mentioned how I wanted the world to work and not that this is how it actually works.

I love how those that felt intimidated were ignorant. Does this also apply when minorities feel intimidated, or only when it is minorities doing the intimidating? i.e. would ta guy wearing a swastika outside a temple being removed be considered the work of ignorants? Would the guy with a KKK cloak on outside an inner city school be considered as exercising his free speech rights and those offended or intimidated by it be called ignorant by you?

Please explain "Some of them increase the freedom of random visitors." Thanks.They are ignorant because if they could read the Arabic they probably wouldn't be frightened by it. If the guy wearing a swastica was actually wearing it to represent some native American tradition, and was somehow himself ignorant of the Nazi use of a swastica, then yes, removing him as a threat would be an act of ignorance, too. That seems pretty far fetched, though. If a buddhist monk was walking around in a faded cloak in the inner city and some locals thought he was in KKK garb and called the cops then that would be ignorant, too. (A bit less far-fetched.)

The chief way in which the freedom of random visitors is increased is that an airport is considered a public accomodation. So it's illegal to exclude people based on race or religion, for instance. (Which you could do if it were a completely private establishment.) I see that as an increase in the freedom of random people: the freedom to be there at all.

[Army, the 3-legged turtle]

Prosecutors accuse DeLay and the two consultants of violating state law by funneling $190,000 in illegal corporate money to the Republican National Committee, which then donated the same amount to Texas candidates. Under Texas law, corporate money can't be directly used for political campaigns.

The other conspiracy count DeLay faces accuses him of conspiring to launder money.

Moving corporate money = laundering. Corporate money = illegal.

As far as I know, no corporations have been charged yet, but it's a matter of time. Forget for a moment that they dismissed charges that he broke any law with this money, because they are too busy trying to add it back to the agenda.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14816735/

[SirVLCIV]

The other conspiracy count DeLay faces accuses him of conspiring to launder money.

Moving corporate money = laundering. Corporate money = illegal.

As far as I know, no corporations have been charged yet, but it's a matter of time. Forget for a moment that they dismissed charges that he broke any law with this money, because they are too busy trying to add it back to the agenda.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14816735/

Or you could create a new thread. And in Texas, yes, corporate money can not be used for political campaigns.

[Army, the 3-legged turtle]

Moving corporate money = laundering. Corporate money = illegal.

As far as I know, no corporations have been charged yet, but it's a matter of time. Forget for a moment that they dismissed charges that he broke any law with this money, because they are too busy trying to add it back to the agenda.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14816735/

Or you could create a new thread. And in Texas, yes, corporate money can not be used for political campaigns.

The money is not illegal if no laws were broken, unless you want to remove a guy from office. Note that people much smarter than you could not charge him with an illegal activity involving that money.

[fallout]

Which is why I specifically mentioned how I wanted the world to work and not that this is how it actually works.

I love how those that felt intimidated were ignorant. Does this also apply when minorities feel intimidated, or only when it is minorities doing the intimidating? i.e. would ta guy wearing a swastika outside a temple being removed be considered the work of ignorants? Would the guy with a KKK cloak on outside an inner city school be considered as exercising his free speech rights and those offended or intimidated by it be called ignorant by you?

Please explain "Some of them increase the freedom of random visitors." Thanks.They are ignorant because if they could read the Arabic they probably wouldn't be frightened by it. If the guy wearing a swastica was actually wearing it to represent some native American tradition, and was somehow himself ignorant of the Nazi use of a swastica, then yes, removing him as a threat would be an act of ignorance, too. That seems pretty far fetched, though. If a buddhist monk was walking around in a faded cloak in the inner city and some locals thought he was in KKK garb and called the cops then that would be ignorant, too. (A bit less far-fetched.)

The chief way in which the freedom of random visitors is increased is that an airport is considered a public accomodation. So it's illegal to exclude people based on race or religion, for instance. (Which you could do if it were a completely private establishment.) I see that as an increase in the freedom of random people: the freedom to be there at all.


What if he was wearing it to exercise his free speech that he believes in Naziism? Or that he was actually a member of the KKK and was there to show he was proud of this fact?

I am not arguing about misinformed or marginal cases. I am wondering about in your face actually using free speech sort of expressions. Let us also assume for the moment, that this individual has never actually hurt any minority or anything that the group his shirt is affiliated with and would not even conceive doing this sort of thing. i.e. he was simply a peaceful hitler fan or a non-violent KKK member.

[Army, the 3-legged turtle]

Defense lawyers asked a judge Monday to throw out the first indictment, arguing that the charge of conspiring to violate campaign finance laws was based on a statute that didn’t take effect until 2003 — a year after the alleged acts.

Reminder for people not much smarter than you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9583433/

If no law is broken, corporate money is still illegal. Freedoms lost.

[Lucy]

What if he was wearing it to exercise his free speech that he believes in Naziism? Or that he was actually a member of the KKK and was there to show he was proud of this fact?

I am not arguing about misinformed or marginal cases. I am wondering about in your face actually using free speech sort of expressions. Let us also assume for the moment, that this individual has never actually hurt any minority or anything that the group his shirt is affiliated with and would not even conceive doing this sort of thing. i.e. he was simply a peaceful hitler fan or a non-violent KKK member.
You are making up examples where a reasonable person who understands the expression might reasonably consider the person to be a threat, whatever the person actually does. These examples are much more like the (hypothetical) man wearing a t-shirt that says "bomb" or "stick em up" to the airport. They really don't have much to do with a guy wearing something that happens to be in Arabic.

Anyhow, if they are standing peacefully on the sidewalk, the guy with the swastica seems to be within the bounds of "freedom of speech" and the guy in the KKK gown may not be, he may be actively threatening people by his "speech".

But back to our airport story: Unless you think that Arabic should reasonably be interpreted as a threat, why should the t-shirt be excluded?

[fallout]

What if he was wearing it to exercise his free speech that he believes in Naziism? Or that he was actually a member of the KKK and was there to show he was proud of this fact?

I am not arguing about misinformed or marginal cases. I am wondering about in your face actually using free speech sort of expressions. Let us also assume for the moment, that this individual has never actually hurt any minority or anything that the group his shirt is affiliated with and would not even conceive doing this sort of thing. i.e. he was simply a peaceful hitler fan or a non-violent KKK member.
You are making up examples where a reasonable person who understands the expression might reasonably consider the person to be a threat, whatever the person actually does. These examples are much more like the (hypothetical) man wearing a t-shirt that says "bomb" or "stick em up" to the airport. They really don't have much to do with a guy wearing something that happens to be in Arabic.

Anyhow, if they are standing peacefully on the sidewalk, the guy with the swastica seems to be within the bounds of "freedom of speech" and the guy in the KKK gown may not be, he may be actively threatening people by his "speech".

But back to our airport story: Unless you think that Arabic should reasonably be interpreted as a threat, why should the t-shirt be excluded?


I do not care if the intimidation the customers of Jet Blue felt was reasonable or not. What I do know is that some were initmidated by it enough to call the counter. Jet Blue made a decision that the shirt was bad for business or creating an environment where it's customers were not going to feel at ease or whatever. To me, the bottom line is it does not matter one bit why Jet Blue asked him to take off the shirt. If Jet Blue wants to make rules on the fly about shirts, it is well within their perogative to do it. This is what companies do all the time. Try to make their customers repeat customers.

How would you feel if Jet Blue denied a passenger entrance to their plane because he smelled really really bad. Maybe just got sprayed by a skunk or something? Unreasonable? Ignorant? Discriminatory?

As an aside, I am kind of amazed at how quick you are to judge people as ignorant and/or unreasonable.

[Gandalf]

I love how those that felt intimidated were ignorant. Does this also apply when minorities feel intimidated, or only when it is minorities doing the intimidating? i.e. would ta guy wearing a swastika outside a temple being removed be considered the work of ignorants? Would the guy with a KKK cloak on outside an inner city school be considered as exercising his free speech rights and those offended or intimidated by it be called ignorant by you?

In those situations, I don't think the police should help those who are offended beat the crap out of the tee shirt wearer. I'll even say that the police should intervene to protect the tee shirt wearer, but I might hope there are no police around.

[Lucy]

As an aside, I am kind of amazed at how quick you are to judge people as ignorant and/or unreasonable.

Whatever. I don't read Arabic either, so I include myself in the ranks of "ignorant". Maybe I wasn't explicit enough, but what I meant by "ignorant" is "couldn't read the t-shirt" and by "unreasonable" was "gets intimidated by a random saying they can't read".

[fallout]

I love how those that felt intimidated were ignorant. Does this also apply when minorities feel intimidated, or only when it is minorities doing the intimidating? i.e. would ta guy wearing a swastika outside a temple being removed be considered the work of ignorants? Would the guy with a KKK cloak on outside an inner city school be considered as exercising his free speech rights and those offended or intimidated by it be called ignorant by you?

In those situations, I don't think the police should help those who are offended beat the crap out of the tee shirt wearer. I'll even say that the police should intervene to protect the tee shirt wearer, but I might hope there are no police around.


:lol:

Interesting. A guy wears arabic script to raise eyebrows and get attention at an airport and he should be protected. A guy wears a t-shirt to raise eyebrows and get attention elsewhere, with a different subset of the population offended/intimidated and you hope he is beat up?

And here I thought liberals were the compassionate ones.


:crazy:

[fallout]

As an aside, I am kind of amazed at how quick you are to judge people as ignorant and/or unreasonable.

Whatever. I don't read Arabic either, so I include myself in the ranks of "ignorant". Maybe I wasn't explicit enough, but what I meant by "ignorant" is "couldn't read the t-shirt" and by "unreasonable" was "gets intimidated by a random saying they can't read".

How would you feel if Jet Blue denied a passenger entrance to their plane because he smelled really really bad. Maybe just got sprayed by a skunk or something? Unreasonable? Ignorant? Discriminatory?

[Lucy]

Whatever. I don't read Arabic either, so I include myself in the ranks of "ignorant". Maybe I wasn't explicit enough, but what I meant by "ignorant" is "couldn't read the t-shirt" and by "unreasonable" was "gets intimidated by a random saying they can't read".

How would you feel if Jet Blue denied a passenger entrance to their plane because he smelled really really bad. Maybe just got sprayed by a skunk or something? Unreasonable? Ignorant? Discriminatory?I'm pretty sure that would be illegal discrimination. Not ignorant. Do you know what that word means?

[Kenshiro]

I'm pretty sure that would be illegal discrimination. Not ignorant. Do you know what that word means?

You can't discriminate based on stink? Uhh...what. What law is that?

[Pseudolus]

If it's illegal to keep Skunky McStinklepants off an airplane, the terrorists have won.

[Gandalf]

In those situations, I don't think the police should help those who are offended beat the crap out of the tee shirt wearer. I'll even say that the police should intervene to protect the tee shirt wearer, but I might hope there are no police around.


:lol:

Interesting. A guy wears arabic script to raise eyebrows and get attention at an airport and he should be protected. A guy wears a t-shirt to raise eyebrows and get attention elsewhere, with a different subset of the population offended/intimidated and you hope he is beat up?

And here I thought liberals were the compassionate ones.


:crazy:
I would feel similarly about someone wearing a shirt in Arabic that said "the Americans who died in 9/11 deserved it", but not quite as strongly. The message is equally reprehensible, but wearing that shirt in an airport is not as offensive as wearing a Nazi shirt at a synagogue or a KKK shirt at a predominantly black school.

A shirt in Arabic is not offensive unless the message is offensive.

[fallout]

:lol:

Interesting. A guy wears arabic script to raise eyebrows and get attention at an airport and he should be protected. A guy wears a t-shirt to raise eyebrows and get attention elsewhere, with a different subset of the population offended/intimidated and you hope he is beat up?

And here I thought liberals were the compassionate ones.


:crazy:
I would feel similarly about someone wearing a shirt in Arabic that said "the Americans who died in 9/11 deserved it", but not quite as strongly. The message is equally reprehensible, but wearing that shirt in an airport is not as offensive as wearing a Nazi shirt at a synagogue or a KKK shirt at a predominantly black school.

A shirt in Arabic is not offensive unless the message is offensive.


This is your opinion. I am glad, personally, that others also get to decide what they consider is offensive and not Gandalf gets to dictate to the world what is and is not offensive.

By the way, your desire to see people wearing shirts that you dislike (i.e. exercise free speech) in places you dislike them to be worn, get beaten up, is quite frankly offensive.

Did you ever weigh in on that thread with the girl wearing a swastika in her Bush shirt at the amusement park thread? Did you hope she would be beaten up too?

[fallout]

How would you feel if Jet Blue denied a passenger entrance to their plane because he smelled really really bad. Maybe just got sprayed by a skunk or something? Unreasonable? Ignorant? Discriminatory?I'm pretty sure that would be illegal discrimination. Not ignorant. Do you know what that word means?

I am ignorant of it's meaning.

Also, I quite hope the airlines would keep Mr. Stinky off my plane. I would not like to fly in that sort of aroma.

Do you honestly think a guy who just got sprayed by a skunk would be allowed onto the plane?

[Gandalf]

This is your opinion. I am glad, personally, that others also get to decide what they consider is offensive and not Gandalf gets to dictate to the world what is and is not offensive.

By the way, your desire to see people wearing shirts that you dislike (i.e. exercise free speech) in places you dislike them to be worn, get beaten up, is quite frankly offensive.

Nazis and KKK have a right to free speech. I'm fine with the police protecting their right to free speech. If they announce they're having a march, and get whatever permits are required, I want the police to protect them.

If they show up unannounced at a synagogue or inner-city school, looking to cause trouble, I'm not going to lose sleep over the trouble they find themselves in. You really think they wouldn't be expecting trouble?

[fallout]

This is your opinion. I am glad, personally, that others also get to decide what they consider is offensive and not Gandalf gets to dictate to the world what is and is not offensive.

By the way, your desire to see people wearing shirts that you dislike (i.e. exercise free speech) in places you dislike them to be worn, get beaten up, is quite frankly offensive.

Nazis and KKK have a right to free speech. I'm fine with the police protecting their right to free speech. If they announce they're having a march, and get whatever permits are required, I want the police to protect them.

If they show up unannounced at a synagogue or inner-city school, looking to cause trouble, I'm not going to lose sleep over the trouble they find themselves in. You really think they wouldn't be expecting trouble?

I dunno.

What if the guy at the airport tried to get on the plane, but some of the offended ones, decide instead to beat the crap out of him and toss him out of the plane? Would you be ok with this too?

Do you think the guy in the airport with the arabic script was hoping to not draw attention to himself?

:-?

[Lucy]

Do you think the guy in the airport with the arabic script was hoping to not draw attention to himself?
I doubt he was actively hoping not to be noticed, but I also think it's a stretch to assume he was looking to be noticed.

I once worked as a poll watcher. I wore jeans and a t-shirt. We were warned that it was important not to make any partisan statements within the polling place. It was surprisingly difficult to find a t-shirt that couldn't be misinterpreted to say something political. None of my t-shirts were purchased for their political content, but the name of a college musical I particapated in, the name of the camp I went to, all could be misinterpreted to have political content. The guy could well have just pulled the t-shirt from the top of the "clean" pile on his way to go where-ever.

Fallout, do you think Arabic script, in and of itself, is threatening or offensive?

[Lucy]

I'm pretty sure that would be illegal discrimination. Not ignorant. Do you know what that word means?

You can't discriminate based on stink? Uhh...what. What law is that?
Maybe you can?? I've been seated next to some pretty stinky people, so in practice I have to think they don't do that.

[fallout]

Do you think the guy in the airport with the arabic script was hoping to not draw attention to himself?
I doubt he was actively hoping not to be noticed, but I also think it's a stretch to assume he was looking to be noticed.

I once worked as a poll watcher. I wore jeans and a t-shirt. We were warned that it was important not to make any partisan statements within the polling place. It was surprisingly difficult to find a t-shirt that couldn't be misinterpreted to say something political. None of my t-shirts were purchased for their political content, but the name of a college musical I particapated in, the name of the camp I went to, all could be misinterpreted to have political content. The guy could well have just pulled the t-shirt from the top of the "clean" pile on his way to go where-ever.

Fallout, do you think Arabic script, in and of itself, is threatening or offensive?


I do not. However, I do not believe myself morally or intellectually superior to those that were upset to see it on someone waiting for their plane.

So seriously, a guy gets sprayed by a skunk and should be allowed to walk right onto a plane in "Lucy fantasy land"?

[Gandalf]

What if the guy at the airport tried to get on the plane, but some of the offended ones, decide instead to beat the crap out of him and toss him out of the plane? Would you be ok with this too?
No.

Can we accept as a starting point that Nazis believe Jews are inferior and that the KKK believes that blacks are inferior? Can we further agree that those who write in Arabic do not necessarily hate Americans, support terrorists, etc?

There's also the location issue. Nazis going to a synagogue, presumably for no other reason than to cause trouble, is quite different from a person wanting to board an airplane.

Do you think the guy in the airport with the arabic script was hoping to not draw attention to himself?Draw attention to himself? Probably. Send a message of hatred? No, I think (given the actual message on the shirt) definitely not. Offend other passengers? Not enough information to decide, but no reason to think so. Looking for trouble? Probably not.

If someone wore a shirt that said "Bush is full of s**t", he would probably be intending to offend some other passengers, but would not (I suspect) be looking for trouble.