Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - DL passenger denied boarding due to t-shirt design

Kind of a crazy story-- the short version: DL denied passenger boarding to a guy and his wife due to t-shirt design supposedly making passengers "uncomfortable." After some decent interaction with the TSA (who seem to come out as reasonable in this story), the airport police (in this case, he was flying out of BUF, so it was the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority) come over and say a lot of really stupid things. Sounds like a case of "flying while brown" combined with idiotic airport cops.

The whole story is a must-read... http://arijitvsdelta.blogspot.co.uk/

(p.s. to mods: if this would be better in another forum, my apologies, please feel free to relocate)

I plowed through the article, and while I have some sympathy for the author, the airport is usually not the place to argue about this kind of stuff. To do so may oftentimes get one the results the author got, right or wrong as the case may be. Yes, you can claim you were wronged, complain to whomever, write a blog or whatever, etc., etc..Enough said.

I plowed through the article, and while I have some sympathy for the author, the airport is usually not the place to argue about this kind of stuff. To do so may oftentimes get one the results the author got, right or wrong as the case may be. Yes, you can claim you were wronged, complain to whomever, write a blog or whatever, etc., etc..Enough said.

I agree, though it doesn't sound like he was doing much arguing-- the DL rep was clueless, the TSA was "doing their job" but at least sympathetic, and the airport cops sounded like total jerks. They caused him to miss his flight and he was being asked really idiotic questions by the airport cops... in the same situation, I might have given a few sarcastic answers back, too. :)

I wonder what compensation he'll end up getting from Delta.

Kind of a crazy story-- the short version: DL denied passenger boarding due to t-shirt design making passengers "very uncomfortable." After some decent interaction with the TSA (who seem to come out as reasonable in this story), the airport police (in this case, he was flying out of BUF, so it was the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority) come over and say a lot of really stupid things.

The whole story is a must-read...

http://arijitvsdelta.blogspot.co.uk/

(p.s. to mods: if this would be better in another forum, my apologies, please feel free to relocate)

I read it all - sorry for what you went through. Sadly, with some jumped up jerks in society, put a uniform on them and they think they are God. Disgraceful.

Sounds to me like someone wearing a tshirt designed to get attention, and he got it.

he's an idiot. plain and simple. don't wear stupid s*** that a lot of other people don't know the meaning of when it could be construed the wrong way

I read it all - sorry for what you went through. Sadly, with some jumped up jerks in society, put a uniform on them and they think they are God. Disgraceful.

I'm happy to say that it's not my story... and I agree, if everything the author claims is true, the whole thing is pretty ridiculous and makes DL and the airport cops look terrible.

Sounds to me like someone wearing a tshirt designed to get attention, and he got it.

he's an idiot. plain and simple. don't wear stupid s*** that a lot of other people don't know the meaning of when it could be construed the wrong way

I would disagree, and here's why: did you see the t-shirt in question? I had to go back and look at it a few times because it's so not offensive. It's an interesting, complex graphic design (with no offensive elements) and some (very small, non-offensive) copy around the outside. Hmm in fact here it is:

http://d3gqasl9vmjfd8.cloudfront.net/e7416165-8322-439e-b2dc-c3dfe7e642a6.jpg

If you visit any hip t-shirt store (or even the not-so-hip, like Urban Outfitters), you'll find many shirts that are far more graphic and/or offensive than this. Seriously, I had to look at it twice to even figure out what people are so upset about. To me it "reads" as some kind of design that might be from a movie or TV show. Perhaps the phrase "take off your shoes" was too much? :rolleyes:

And furthermore: you may not like this t-shirt or the design isn't right for you... no problem.... but really, would you be "uncomfortable" by some guy wearing it? (Haven't we all seen much, much worse?) Did the DL rep think "real" terrorists could be spotted by the advertising on their t-shirts? Good grief. If only there had been more unicorns, kittens and glitter, maybe then the guy and his wife would have been allowed to fly.

he's an idiot. plain and simple. don't wear stupid s*** that a lot of other people don't know the meaning of when it could be construed the wrong way

It's not as if you have rights or anything.

After reading this whole posting, two parts (from the very beginning, actually) stuck out in my mind.

First:
"On August 18, after I cleared multiple TSA security checks, a Delta pilot denied my right to board a flight."

-Sorry, boss. Flying a plane is by no means a right. Free speech is a right. Freedom to assemble is a right. Freedom to travel a private transportation carrier is not a right. You're in the pilot's world, in every way possible. If you can't handle that, there is a lovely interstate system that connects Buffalo and Phoenix.

And second:
"I was then questioned by TSA about the significance and meaning of the shirt. I politely explained that it was “mocking the security theater charade and over-reactions to terrorism by the general public — both of which we're seeing right now, ironically.” "

-Not the best place to voice your opinion about airport security. To airport security, at that. This is an expression of free speech, as no one threw you in jail for your opinion. Private businesses do not have to respect your opinion. The phrase "we reserve the right to refuse service" rings a bell.

Bottom line of this whole piece: Don't be an idiot. Not everyone is as humorous, hip, and witty when it comes to dealing with airline terrorism... Especially those directly affected by airline terrorism... In the state of New York... Where airline terrorism kind of disrupted life for a few people.

Just my two cents.

It's not as if you have rights or anything.

I'm pretty sure that there is no right to fly DL while wearing an obnoxious t-shirt meant to incite this sort of reaction, but feel free to point me to case law or statute that says otherwise.

Frankly, I'm happy for the guy. He clearly wanted this to happen, so I'm glad someone obliged. As for everyone else involved, I'm sorry that they had to be hassled by some clown so stupid as to think this sort of hissy fit is constructive and likely to affect change.

There’s ten minutes of my life I’m never going to get back.

I believe this guy wore the shirt with the intention of drawing the precise attention he got and, when he “waved his red cape,” got the treatment he deserved.

I support the guy’s right to believe the government overreacts to security threats…but the airport is the wrong place to expect people to listen quietly. I’d say he ought to know better, but I suspect he does…

Not everyone is as humorous, hip, and witty when it comes to dealing with airline terrorism...

In what way was this guy humorous, hip, or witty? I didn't laugh and not because I can't laugh at airline terrorism, TSA agents, or crazy government regulation. I didn't laugh because it was so dull, unoriginal, and lacking in either subtlety or over-the-top absurdness. It was just so utterly contrived and earnest.

As other posters have said, this guy was LOOKING for attention. He's not a nursing mom with breastmilk she doesn't want to go through a radiation field. He's not an elderly woman who doesn't want her underpants checked. He's a guy who wanted to make a spectacle of himself and did so. He doesn't deserve jack-diddlysquat from Delta. He's lucky he ever gets to fly a US-based carrier again.

In what way was this guy humorous, hip, or witty? I didn't laugh and not because I can't laugh at airline terrorism, TSA agents, or crazy government regulation. I didn't laugh because it was so dull, unoriginal, and lacking in either subtlety or over-the-top absurdness.

Jesus Christ... It's sarcasm. Read my whole post. I'm obviously not taking the dude's side.

Jesus Christ... It's sarcasm. Read my whole post. I'm obviously not taking the dude's side.

I know you weren't taking his side, I was simply trying to underline the complete and utter lack of anything constructive from this. I mean, if it were funny, then at least there would be that, but instead we got bubkus from this guy.

I wonder what compensation he'll end up getting from Delta.
I hope they compensate him with free lifetime membership to the Delta No Fly List club.

This is ridiculous! If he was a threat with the shirt on, then he was a threat without the shirt. What gutless hypocrisy by the TSA and Delta!

Those who say that you don't have a right to fly, obviously missed the point that once the "offensive" shirt was removed, he did have the "right" to fly. Perhaps you should re-phrase your statement as, "you don't have the right to offend another passenger and fly", or more likely, "you don't have the right to mock the TSA, otherwise we will ruin your day"--It's total BS.

I saw a metal band at immigration control in Narita once that were on the same flight with me from ORD, and one of the guys was wearing a t-shirt that said, "Islam, the religion of peace?" on the front, and "Prepare to meet Allah" with a graphic of a terrorist on the back. I guess that celebrities are exempted from being jerked around by the TSA.

What a bunch of weenies we have become in this country!

he's an idiot. plain and simple. don't wear stupid s*** that a lot of other people don't know the meaning of when it could be construed the wrong way

Rather, if this is Arjit Guha, he is not an idiot.

Should people be harassed, like mentioned in the blog entry, for wearing this shirt: "I make milk, what is your superpower(, limp wimp)? "

Jesus Christ... It's sarcasm. Read my whole post. I'm obviously not taking the dude's side.

That's what you get for the "mistake" of being perceived as critical of Delta Airlines -- so attack commenced.

DL can do (little to) no wrong. Now, why not get with the team or otherwise let revisionist history have its way? ;)

It's not often I sympathize with TSA and DL procedural stuff, but there you go. I feel sorry for them having to deal with people like this traveler, and I'm happy he has suffered the consequences of his attention seeking.

I have seen t-shirts wildly more attention getting than that - I am talking crude: words I do not use.
I see things I don't like or don't agree with. I just don't let myself get engaged with it.
I don't see a problem with the t-shirt. I don't have to like it. I don't think the shirt posed a threat.

It's not as if you have rights or anything.

Maybe. But there is a time and a place for everything. Considering the nature of the message of his shirt, it's like he wore it on purpose, to cause the incident, to them basically write about it.

They all fell in to his trap, he succeeds in his plan to have his day turned upside down, he writes about it...

I fail to see why anyone is surprised.

It's like if I wore a shirt with Hitler and "Not all his ideas were bad" written on it and went to a JDate mixer... Freedom of speech - but begging for trouble.

Another passive-aggressive, attention seeking d**chebag... The only reason to where those stupid shirts is to incite reactions from and gain the attention of other people.

Jesus Christ... It's sarcasm. Read my whole post. I'm obviously not taking the dude's side.

I have no shame in "taking the dude's side."

First off, his shirt is spot on.
Secondly, denying him boarding based on the discomfort of other pax is a very slippery slope. Let them deplane themselves if they don't like his shirt.

Good on you, Arijit.

[And nice work against Aetna as well! (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/tweeting-for-student-health-care-coverage/)]

Another passive-aggressive, attention seeking d**chebag... The only reason to where those stupid shirts is to incite reactions from and gain the attention of other people.

Taking a break from stupidity, there is intelligence in seeing how stupidly people react to a harmless shirt. It would be even more intelligent if he were to see how the reaction is different when a European-American is wearing that which an Indian-American could not wear that day at BUF without getting harassed for a harmless shirt.

The shirt is mild compared to some of the stuff that would result in a non-G rating if highlighted in a movie.

As I am taking DL from BUF, perhaps I should have my own study. :)

That's what you get for the "mistake" of being perceived as critical of Delta Airlines -- so attack commenced.

DL can do (little to) no wrong. Now, why not get with the team or otherwise let revisionist history have its way? ;)

I'm sorry, but I'm not taking Delta's side on this. I'm taking the side of common f**king sense. Don't wear a shirt that you know has the potential to cause drama and attract attention... Which is exactly what this guy wanted.

Rather, if this is Arjit Guha, he is not an idiot.

Should people be harassed, like mentioned in the blog entry, for wearing this shirt: "I make milk, what is your superpower(, limp wimp)? "

whatever that means...

and like it has anything to do with bombs or terrorism...

I'm amazed at those comparing this to being more tame than what is portrayed in movies and other shirts you see. You know what??? They don't mention the "trigger" words that this shirt did.

I can understand the op's side. Do I think he was right in wearing the shirt, No. But he does have the right to wear what he wants.

I was on a DL flight from SEA/Atl. The flight was delayed by an hour. I had 1 drink at the bar, and then proceeded to the gate. I spoke with the co-captain for 15 mintues while the plane deboarded. Next thing I knew, the FA asked me to meet the captain on the jetway. A pax complained that they thought I was a threat. The captain agreed I showed no signs of a threat, he even told me the co-captain spoke with me. He told me I could take a later flight or agree not to drink on the flight. I took the flight. The FA told me the captain was an a-hole and asked me want I wanted, once he closed the cockpit door.

Bottom line, the captain has the final word, even when he's wrong. Probably the same a-hole!

I am moving this thread over to the appropriate TS/S forum for further discussion.

RSSrsvp - Moderator

Same reason they will pull you off the plane if you make a joke about a bomb on board.

Seriously, when I look at the shirt straight on, the only words I can make out without twisting my head around are "bomb", "terrorists (misspelled ) ", "gonna kill US...something or other".

I'd pull the guy off too. Stupid TSA rules aside, the guy is a jerk and got the 15 minutes he was looking for. Plus who knows how many miles for his inconvenience.

First off, his shirt is spot on.


Then maybe you can tell me what "ZOMG" means.

whatever that means...

and like it has anything to do with bombs or terrorism...

I'm amazed at those comparing this to being more tame than what is portrayed in movies and other shirts you see. You know what??? They don't mention the "trigger" words that this shirt did.

Paranoid, "gutless little twerps" trigger themselves over anything, everything or nothing at all -- they should take control of their own emotions before worrying about others and trying to micromanage others' legitimate expression of grievance with paranoid nitwits and control freaks.

whatever that means...

and like it has anything to do with bombs or terrorism...

I'm amazed at those comparing this to being more tame than what is portrayed in movies and other shirts you see. You know what??? They don't mention the "trigger" words that this shirt did.

It means that a woman can produce milk from her breasts, which is pretty a pretty amazing power. It also denigrates men.

You are wrong about "trigger" words. I routinely call the UA website "dot-bomb", to personnel at the airport. Should I be prevented from flying?

Are we merely a nation of "Sheeple" now?

Then maybe you can tell me what "ZOMG" means.

http://mashable.com/2011/06/03/zomg-twittersphere-oxford-dictionary/

Those who say that you don't have a right to fly, obviously missed the point that once the "offensive" shirt was removed, he did have the "right" to fly.

Again, please point to either statute or court decision that addresses a "right" to fly. Wanting something to be a right doesn't make it so and doesn't provide any legal obligation on DL's part to provide transport to someone intentionally seeking to make a scene.

he's an idiot. plain and simple. don't wear stupid s*** that a lot of other people don't know the meaning of when it could be construed the wrong way

Yeah, he is an idiots. He can't be inappropriate thing to TSA. Right, he is not allowed to wear a inappropriate TSA shirt. It's not permitted. He have to change a shirt.

Unfortunately, he was denied boarding. He will not able fly for those days. I don't like it for his behavior. He have obey the rules.

I'm sorry, but I'm not taking Delta's side on this. I'm taking the side of common f**king sense. Don't wear a shirt that you know has the potential to cause drama and attract attention... Which is exactly what this guy wanted.

He didn't even communicate using any angry vulgarities/expletives. Should the above post keep a person off a DL plane operated by the same pilot?

Paranoid, "gutless little twerps" trigger themselves over anything, everything or nothing at all -- they should take control of their own emotions before worrying about others and trying to micromanage others' legitimate expression of grievance with paranoid nitwits and control freaks.

Cool, I guess I'm a gutless little twerp for thinking the shirt might draw some unwanted attention. Frankly, I could care less about the guys shirt. It's not about that... It's about common sense and knowing how to act maturely in the time we live in. He firmly admits knowing that the shirt he was wearing was mocking air travel security. That leads me to believe one of two things:

1. He was looking for attention, and got it.
2. He doesn't have the mental capacity to realize it might be an issue.

He's either loving the attention or too stupid to figure out the problem.

He didn't even communicate using any angry vulgarities/expletives. Should the above post keep a person off a DL plane operated by the same pilot?

Uhh, yeah. Re-read the article:

"I was stunned. “You’re f------ kidding me,” I said in response."

He cussed at the Delta manager. You lose.

Secondly, denying him boarding based on the discomfort of other pax is a very slippery slope. Let them deplane themselves if they don't like his shirt.

A slippery slope in what way? Is there some grave risk in DL seeking to ensure the comfort of the majority of their passengers as opposed to the exceedingly limited minority out to make a nuisance of themselves? I've seen folks kicked out of bars for making an ... out of themselves and annoying those around them. They weren't a danger to anyone, just obnoxious. I suppose that is a slippery slope, too?

Same reason they will pull you off the plane if you make a joke about a bomb on board.

Seriously, when I look at the shirt straight on, the only words I can make out without twisting my head around are "bomb", "terrorists (misspelled ) ", "gonna kill US...something or other".

I'd pull the guy off too. Stupid TSA rules aside, the guy is a jerk and got the 15 minutes he was looking for. Plus who knows how many miles for his inconvenience.

He has had more than proverbial 15 minutes of fame. This isn't the first time his name will make some story from major news outlets.

Again, please point to either statute or court decision that addresses a "right" to fly. Wanting something to be a right doesn't make it so and doesn't provide any legal obligation on DL's part to provide transport to someone intentionally seeking to make a scene.

My first thought was Cohen vs California, of course has nothing to do with the right to fly...this case dealt more with offensive wording on a t-shirt.

Uhh, yeah. Re-read the article:

"I was stunned. “You’re f------ kidding me,” I said in response."

He cussed at the Delta manager. You lose.

Read again and note that he was already being kept off the flight before he even said those words.

You don't win. ;)

Again, please point to either statute or court decision that addresses a "right" to fly. Wanting something to be a right doesn't make it so and doesn't provide any legal obligation on DL's part to provide transport to someone intentionally seeking to make a scene.

Completely missed my point. Note that I put "right" in quotations to mock a poster from your side of the argument.

Poor man and his wife.
So now there is a unknown dressing code for flying!?

STUPID.

Guess that I will get stopped. I wear pink tank tops and I am in my late 50.

Hm that is very suspisious.:rolleyes:

The shirt design is from back in 2007. Was this the first time this shirt design has been worn at an airport? What was different this time?

Read again and note that he was already being kept off the flight before he even said those words.

You don't win. ;)

The captain had already made the call to keep him off. So cussing at the manager (ie, shooting the messenger) made things better?

Keep your Delta hatred alive. It blinds your common sense nicely.

He has had more than proverbial 15 minutes of fame. This isn't the first time his name will make some story from major news outlets.

Technically, he's already been in the news before this:

This Graduate Student Tweeted Aetna to Clear $118,000 of Medical Bills — and It Worked (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/graduate-student-tweeted-aetna-clear-172247511.html)

...you might want to read this article... IMHO he comes across smart and very level-headed.

And here's what he looks like:

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/cD9lx9fE6D4M3W0hnrsF0Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/284/2012/08/15/arijit-guha-jpg_170351.jpg

Sounds to me like someone wearing a tshirt designed to get attention, and he got it.

Yup.

After reading this whole posting, two parts (from the very beginning, actually) stuck out in my mind.

First:
"On August 18, after I cleared multiple TSA security checks, a Delta pilot denied my right to board a flight."

-Sorry, boss. Flying a plane is by no means a right. Free speech is a right. Freedom to assemble is a right. Freedom to travel a private transportation carrier is not a right. You're in the pilot's world, in every way possible. If you can't handle that, there is a lovely interstate system that connects Buffalo and Phoenix.

And second:
"I was then questioned by TSA about the significance and meaning of the shirt. I politely explained that it was “mocking the security theater charade and over-reactions to terrorism by the general public — both of which we're seeing right now, ironically.” "

-Not the best place to voice your opinion about airport security. To airport security, at that. This is an expression of free speech, as no one threw you in jail for your opinion. Private businesses do not have to respect your opinion. The phrase "we reserve the right to refuse service" rings a bell.

Bottom line of this whole piece: Don't be an idiot. Not everyone is as humorous, hip, and witty when it comes to dealing with airline terrorism... Especially those directly affected by airline terrorism... In the state of New York... Where airline terrorism kind of disrupted life for a few people.

Just my two cents.

+1

I am moving this thread over to the appropriate TS/S forum for further discussion.

RSSrsvp - Moderator

(thanks!)

Yup.

And the issue with that is what? Do most people love to be ignored? ;)

If you have an issue with someone lawfully seeking attention, why not practice some self-control and just ignore the harmless attention-seeking (if attention-seeking is what is driving the behavior)?

The captain had already made the call to keep him off. So cussing at the manager (ie, shooting the messenger) made things better?

Keep your Delta hatred alive. It blinds your common sense nicely.

I have no DL hatred -- merely not a big fan of DL SkyMiles management's way of dealing with SkyMiles customers. But feel free to imagine things however you wish to "see" things. ;)

He was already denied boarding before any vulgarities/expletives were communicated. Should your post's use of angry vulgarities/expletives be used to deny you boarding on a DL flight? Why not? Doesn't it make some mommies with bed-wetting children uncomfortable?

I worry about people who wear crosses and other religious symbols on planes.
To me, that indicates that they are only too willing and ready to die so that they can meet their deity. Thus, they may try to bring down the plane in flight, which isn't fair to those of us who have no deity to resurrect us after the plane crash.

I want all religious symbols banned from all flights. It's only reasonable.

People who openly wear religious symbols are just looking for attention, right?

Then maybe you can tell me what "ZOMG" means.

It's a deliberately overenthusiastic way of saying OMG. Did you really not know that?

So what the shirt is doing is, it's mocking people who think there are terrorists everywhere and who are so cowardly they think that the shoe carnival and war on water and cancer boxes are necessary to make them feel safe. The shirt expresses what is going on in the minds of such cowardly people.

He firmly admits knowing that the shirt he was wearing was mocking air travel security.

No, he's mocking cowardice.

No, he's mocking cowardice.

That seems to be mainly it.

He even indicated that the BUF TSA behaved better than DL staff and the "airport police" there and that the TSA should be trusted for their assessment clearing him. DL ends up the real target, something I doubt he expected.

Imagine that, somebody shows up wearing a shirt with a picture of a bomb and the words Gonna Kill Us All to board an airplane and people get nervous.

Funny how that works.

He's probably been trying for so long and nobody paid any attention to him, having the blog post written just waiting for a few details.

He wanted a confrontation, he got one.

I have no DL hatred -- merely not a big fan of DL SkyMiles management's way of dealing with SkyMiles customers. But feel free to imagine things however you wish to "see" things. ;)

He was already denied boarding before any vulgarities/expletives were communicated. Should your post's use of angry vulgarities/expletives be used to deny you boarding on a DL flight? Why not? Doesn't it make some mommies with bed-wetting children uncomfortable?

I didn't say it to a Delta employee at an airport while pleading my case... Huge difference. And the shirt doesn't offend me. Truthfully, I probably wouldn't even spend the time to read it if he was sitting next to me. It just seems patently obvious that he wore the shirt to get attention... As evidenced by his statement about airport security, to airport security. He also says that he was worn the shirt at least 5 times in the past while flying. Now I very well could be wrong, but that statement gives off the vibe like he's been counting how many times he's worn it without anyone saying something. And with nearly 90 flights last year, I couldn't even ballpark how many times I've worn a certain article of clothing on one - Could have worn the same shirt 15 times, or not worn it once. I have no clue, because I'm not keeping a tally. Why would anyone keep track of that mundane statistic if they didn't feel like they weren't getting away with something?

Bottom line, it seems to me like he knew exactly what he was doing. Your mileage - obviously - may vary.

The seating is so cramped that once he is seated no one will be able to see the shirt.

Imagine that, somebody shows up wearing a shirt with a picture of a bomb and the words Gonna Kill Us All to board an airplane and people get nervous.

Funny how that works.

He's probably been trying for so long and nobody paid any attention to him, having the blog post written just waiting for a few details.

He wanted a confrontation, he got one.

No, he just didn't understand that there would be people to ignorant to understand what that shirt means. Look at it:

BOMBSZOMGZOMGTERRISTSGONNAKILLUSALLZOMGZOMGALERTLE VEL
BLOODREDTAKEOFFYOURSHOESMOISTURE

It's a stream of consciousness of a cowardly mind, that sees threats everywhere. He didn't understand that the plane was as full of cowards as it was, and he inadvertently got people to demonstrate the mentality mocked by the shirt. I mean you had passengers on the plane so cowardly they felt threatened by words on a shirt. The man had no weapons, had no means to harm anyone. But people so cowardly that the thoughts actually running through their heads were in fact BOMBSZOMGZOMGTERRISTSGONNAKILLUSALL ZOMGZOMGALERTLEVEL BLOODREDTAKEOFFYOURSHOESMOISTURE

were so threatened by words on a shirt that they couldn't fly with him without wetting their pants.

I didn't say it to a Delta employee at an airport while pleading my case... Huge difference.

The huge difference is you said the angry vulgarities/expletives before being involuntarily denied boarding. He said the vulgar word after being involuntarily denied boarding.

It just seems patently obvious that he wore the shirt to get attention...

No it doesn't.

Imagine that, somebody shows up wearing a shirt with a picture of a bomb and the words Gonna Kill Us All to board an airplane and people get nervous.

Funny how that works.

He's probably been trying for so long and nobody paid any attention to him, having the blog post written just waiting for a few details.

He wanted a confrontation, he got one.

I'm not really understanding what harm people believed the picture and words were going to cause, and how they were going to cause it. Can you enlighten me?

The huge difference is you said the angry vulgarities/expletives before being involuntarily denied boarding. He said the vulgar word after being involuntarily denied boarding.

No, I didn't. Are you drunk? I said "common f**king sense" on an internet message board. That is a huge difference.

And Carl Johnson, I guess everyone who disagrees with you is a coward for not seeing how cool and ironic this shirt is. Cool beans, man. Can we go smoke some Parliament's in the back parking lot after school and talk more about how the mainstream is full of cowards and posers?

Again, please point to either statute or court decision that addresses a "right" to fly.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cY8bRdMRRok/TxGP3ffwrBI/AAAAAAAAAY4/PnaOPrgo3uc/s1600/picard-facepalm.jpg

Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 US (1941)
A citizen's right to interstate travel has long been recognized as a fundamental right, grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution.

Kent v. Dulles 357 US (1958)
The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.

Aphtheker v. Sec. Of State 378 US (1964)
Freedom of travel is a constitutional liberty closely related to the rights of free speech and association The constitutional right to travel has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution.

US v. Guest 383 US (1966)
The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily use the highways or other instruments of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. Freedom to travel throughout
the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.

Shapiro v. Thompson 394 US (1969)
This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulations which unreasonably burden or retrict this movement. It is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. It is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.

Griffin v. Breckenridge 403 US (1971)
Our cases have firmly established that the right of interstate travel is
constitutionally protected, does not necessarily rest on the Fourteenth
Amendment, and is assertable against private as well as governmental
interference.

Dunn v. Blumstein 405 US (1972)
Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution. (Affirming Guest, above)

US v. Davis 482 F.2D (1973)
It is firmly established that freedom to travel at home and abroad without unreasonable governmental restriction is a fundamental constitutional right of every citizen.

Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County 415 US (1974)
The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic
constitutional freedom.

Califano v. Torres 435 US (1978)
The constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually unqualified.

No it doesn't.

Indeed. It doesn't take genius and detailed statistical record-keeping and analysis to figure out for himself that he had worn the shirt at airports at least five times before without incident. There is no good reason for a person to conclude that the next time would be so radically different from his own prior experiences and that of others.

I can pretty much figure out the minimum number of times this communication device of mine has been on a plane without some paranoid "gutless little twerp[s]" working themselves into a frenzy because of it. Perhaps next time can be different -- just depends on others.

No, I didn't. Are you drunk? I said "common f**king sense" on an internet message board. That is a huge difference.

And Carl Johnson, I guess everyone who disagrees with you is a coward for not seeing how cool and ironic this shirt is. Cool beans, man. Can we go smoke some Parliament's in the back parking lot after school and talk more about how the mainstream is full of cowards and posers?

Haha, no, they're ignorant for not understanding what the shirt means. Seeing it as cool or ironic is a matter of taste, and chacun a son gôut.

They're cowards for being scared of a shirt.

The fact that they were scared of a shirt, though, does prove they have a correct understanding of how much the TSA contributes to security. If they believed the TSA did its job effectively, they wouldn't believe they had reason to be scared of another passenger, no matter what scary talismanic words were written on his shirt.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cY8bRdMRRok/TxGP3ffwrBI/AAAAAAAAAY4/PnaOPrgo3uc/s1600/picard-facepalm.jpg

Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 US (1941)
A citizen's right to interstate travel has long been recognized as a fundamental right, grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution.

Kent v. Dulles 357 US (1958)
The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.

Aphtheker v. Sec. Of State 378 US (1964)
Freedom of travel is a constitutional liberty closely related to the rights of free speech and association The constitutional right to travel has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution.

US v. Guest 383 US (1966)
The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily use the highways or other instruments of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. Freedom to travel throughout
the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.

Shapiro v. Thompson 394 US (1969)
This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulations which unreasonably burden or retrict this movement. It is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. It is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.

Griffin v. Breckenridge 403 US (1971)
Our cases have firmly established that the right of interstate travel is
constitutionally protected, does not necessarily rest on the Fourteenth
Amendment, and is assertable against private as well as governmental
interference.

Dunn v. Blumstein 405 US (1972)
Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution. (Affirming Guest, above)

US v. Davis 482 F.2D (1973)
It is firmly established that freedom to travel at home and abroad without unreasonable governmental restriction is a fundamental constitutional right of every citizen.

Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County 415 US (1974)
The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic
constitutional freedom.

Califano v. Torres 435 US (1978)
The constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually unqualified.

This case didn't involve a state actor though, so there isn't a constitutional issue.

GUWonder and Carl Johnson... Have a good night getting your troll on. I'm gone for the night.

No, I didn't.

Yes, you did. Your choice of repeated communication of angry vulgar expression on an internet board before flying (again) makes some people uncomfortable. Welcome to being a candidate for involuntary denied boarding. ;)

He was denied boarding before communicating any vulgarity here or at the airport. And yet you have not been denied boarding even after communication of the angry vulgarity? Shocking. :)

This case didn't involve a state actor though, so there isn't a constitutional issue.

The state actors didn't deny him boarding. His contractual right to fly may have been violated by DL who did deny him boarding -- although I expect a settlement likely from DL if he pushed the matter as much as he could if he so intends to do.

The state actors didn't deny him boarding. His contractual right to fly may have been violated by DL who did deny him boarding -- although I expect a settlement likely from DL if he pushed the matter as much as he could if he so intends to do.

Right. Contractual issues, plus maybe discrimination (addressed by statutes). Maybe the 1964 Civil Rights act if it can be demonstrated that the pilot was motivated by racism.

he's an idiot. plain and simple. don't wear stupid s*** that a lot of other people don't know the meaning of when it could be construed the wrong way

The pen is mightier than the sword - thing to remember though is that it is NOT a sword.

If we have become afraid of words, then we must be equally afraid of thoughts. I don't really want to live in a world where our thoughts alone can define us as a credible threat.

Next time I fly I need to be sure to wear a shirt referencing "bombs" and "terrorists" so I can complain on flyertalk when I am denied boarding. What an idiot!

I'm not really understanding what harm people believed the picture and words were going to cause, and how they were going to cause it. Can you enlighten me?
Everyone knows that modern Bad Guys wear shirts that mock airport security. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

What seems to be missing in this discussion is an acknowledgment than anyone wearing a T-shirt with any words (or images creating a message) is seeking attention for that message. At a workshop on choosing clothes to suit your body type, a presenter described a young woman who had complained that people were always staring at her chest. She then showed a picture of this woman, wearing her typical outfit: a t-shirt with a colorful slogan prominently displayed across the bosom. :D The presenter's conclusion: if you put words there, people are going to look at it. If you wear a t-shirt with a slogan, you are asking people to read your message.

So of course he was wearing the t-shirt to attract attention and send a message. He was mocking the cowardice of the AFS crowd, and the absurd TSA response to it. (I love the eagle holding the shoes and the water bottle.) If you're going to protest such things, where else would you do it? (Yeah, sure, go to the grocery store or the library and take your stand about airport security. :rolleyes::rolleyes:)

And seriously, DL and Buffalo PD, when you're panicking over something that even TSA didn't worry about, you need therapy.

Too many people are too easily 'offended' these days. Quite pathetic.

he's an idiot. plain and simple. don't wear stupid s*** that a lot of other people don't know the meaning of when it could be construed the wrong way

I worry about people who wear crosses and other religious symbols on planes.
To me, that indicates that they are only too willing and ready to die so that they can meet their deity. Thus, they may try to bring down the plane in flight, which isn't fair to those of us who have no deity to resurrect us after the plane crash.

I want all religious symbols banned from all flights. It's only reasonable.

People who openly wear religious symbols are just looking for attention, right?

^^^

What seems to be missing in this discussion is an acknowledgment than anyone wearing a T-shirt with any words (or images creating a message) is seeking attention for that message.

I don't actually think that's the issue (as far as all the attacks on him for "seeking attention" are concerned). The claims that he is seeking attention are just ways to delegitimize him. The criticism is a way for the speaker to attribute illegitimate motivations for acts he doesn't like or disagrees with. The "seeking attention" isn't the key; it's the attempt of the speaker to act as an arbiter of what motivations are and aren't legitimate.

A is just doing B in order to C

It doesn't matter what "C" is, you can put anything in there you want. The point is that the statement is usually irrelevant. It usually doesn't matter why somebody does something; what matters is what they do and the effect it has.

He wore a shirt. The shirt had no capacity to harm the aircraft. Why he wore it is therefore irrelevant.

A slippery slope in what way? Is there some grave risk in DL seeking to ensure the comfort of the majority of their passengers as opposed to the exceedingly limited minority out to make a nuisance of themselves? I've seen folks kicked out of bars for making an ... out of themselves and annoying those around them. They weren't a danger to anyone, just obnoxious. I suppose that is a slippery slope, too?

Do you mean that the person in your analogy is kicked out of the bar for "annoying other people" simply based on what he is wearing? Because if someone is kicked out for wearing a shirt I don't like ("Romney 2012!"), I think it is not legitimate.

In this case, a pax was denied boarding b/c other pax were scared by his shirt. And oh, forgot to mention, his skin is brown.

Last October, I saw a skinhead strolling through SLC airport with a big ol' swastika tattoed into his skull. If he was on my flight (he wasn't), could I claim that I felt threatened and expect him to be pulled off? No... if I had such an issue, I should deplane myself, not the neo-Nazi.

Point is that I don't think Pax A should be denied boarding b/c other pax are made nervous by him, especially if it is due to his t-shirt.

The state actors didn't deny him boarding. His contractual right to fly may have been violated by DL who did deny him boarding -- although I expect a settlement likely from DL if he pushed the matter as much as he could if he so intends to do.
Taken from Domestic Contract of Carriage, Rule 35 Refusal to Transport, paragraph F:

"....Delta may refuse to transport any passenger, or may remove any passenger from its aircraft, when refusal to transport or removal of the passenger is reasonably necessary in Delta’s sole discretion for the passenger’s comfort or safety, for the comfort or safety of other passengers or Delta employees, or for the prevention of damage to the property of Delta or its passengers or employees.

Taken from Domestic Contract of Carriage, Rule 35 Refusal to Transport, paragraph F:

"....Delta may refuse to transport any passenger, or may remove any passenger from its aircraft, when refusal to transport or removal of the passenger is reasonably necessary in Delta’s sole discretion for the passenger’s comfort or safety, for the comfort or safety of other passengers or Delta employees, or for the prevention of damage to the property of Delta or its passengers or employees.

My comfort is affected by the person of greatly enhanced gravitation in the seat next to me. A skinny guy in a t-shirt doesn't affect my comfort at all.

Taken from Domestic Contract of Carriage, Rule 35 Refusal to Transport, paragraph F:

"....Delta may refuse to transport any passenger, or may remove any passenger from its aircraft, when refusal to transport or removal of the passenger is reasonably necessary in Delta’s sole discretion for the passenger’s comfort or safety, for the comfort or safety of other passengers or Delta employees, or for the prevention of damage to the property of Delta or its passengers or employees.

What does "comfort" mean, though? Does it mean a vague unease born of ignorance and cowardice? Or does it have to be something real?

I do feel sorry for this guy. He and I at least share one thing in common: We opt out every time. Kudos to him for not being a sheep.

I was on a flight from ATL -> BHM last night. I watched a lady board wearing a shirt that said: "I am the bomb" and featured a picture of a cartoon bomb (although not the Angry Bird's domb)... I was actually surprised when we didn't take a security theater delay...

Everyone keeps saying the other passengers were afraid because of the guys shirt. I doubt many people read his shirt, but I'm sure his interaction with DL, TSA, and the police force were noticed by everyone in the area. With constant PA announcements about reporting any unusual or suspicious activities to the nearest security officer, is it a wonder travelers feel uncomfortable when they see someone questioned by 3 different authority groups?

Personally, I think he comes across as condescending and entitled in his blog, and that was from his point of view. The t shirt, in my opinion, was the catalyst, but the issue that prevented him from boarding was his attitude.

Everyone keeps saying the other passengers were afraid because of the guys shirt. I doubt many people read his shirt, but I'm sure his interaction with DL, TSA, and the police force were noticed by everyone in the area. With constant PA announcements about reporting any unusual or suspicious activities to the nearest security officer, is it a wonder travelers feel uncomfortable when they see someone questioned by 3 different authority groups?

Personally, I think he comes across as condescending and entitled in his blog, and that was from his point of view. The t shirt, in my opinion, was the catalyst, but the issue that prevented him from boarding was his attitude.

Ummm, you haven't actually told us anything. As nearly as I can make out, you're saying he was denied boarding because passengers were made to feel uneasy because Delta, TSA, and the police questioned him about his shirt? So the problem was caused not by him, but by Delta, TSA, and the police?

Your saying he comes across as condescending and entitled tells us how you feel, but doesn't give us any real information. What is it in his blog that leads you to believe he comes across as condescending and entitled?

In addition, why should feeling condescending and entitled keep him from boarding?

In what way did his attitude keep him from boarding? What attitude should he exhibit, to meet your approval?

I didn't read the article. I looked at the shirt and that was enough for me. If airlines let people wear t shirts on planes that say "bombs" "terrists" "gonna kill us all" then why not let people through security and on planes who are just ranting "bombs, terrists, gonna kill us all." No way people wearing or saying these things should be allowed to fly.

Imagine the lawsuits if they let one of these knuckleheads fly and then he actually did blow up the plane.

I didn't read the article. I looked at the shirt and that was enough for me. If airlines let people wear t shirts on planes that say "bombs" "terrists" "gonna kill us all" then why not let people through security and on planes who are just ranting "bombs, terrists, gonna kill us all." No way people wearing or saying these things should be allowed to fly.

Imagine the lawsuits if they let one of these knuckleheads fly and then he actually did blow up the plane.

This is a joke, right?

I didn't read the article. I looked at the shirt and that was enough for me. If airlines let people wear t shirts on planes that say "bombs" "terrists" "gonna kill us all" then why not let people through security and on planes who are just ranting "bombs, terrists, gonna kill us all." No way people wearing or saying these things should be allowed to fly.

Imagine the lawsuits if they let one of these knuckleheads fly and then he actually did blow up the plane.


But they did let him fly the next day. He was just put through the wringer because of his beliefs, expressed via a clever t-shirt.

Should have read the article.

I don't actually think that's the issue (as far as all the attacks on him for "seeking attention" are concerned). The claims that he is seeking attention are just ways to delegitimize him. The criticism is a way for the speaker to attribute illegitimate motivations for acts he doesn't like or disagrees with. The "seeking attention" isn't the key; it's the attempt of the speaker to act as an arbiter of what motivations are and aren't legitimate.

A is just doing B in order to C

It doesn't matter what "C" is, you can put anything in there you want. The point is that the statement is usually irrelevant. It usually doesn't matter why somebody does something; what matters is what they do and the effect it has.

He wore a shirt. The shirt had no capacity to harm the aircraft. Why he wore it is therefore irrelevant.
I agree with you - bottom line, the shirt had no capacity to harm the aircraft.

So even if he wore it to attract attention (as others have claimed, and as I've agreed with them), it doesn't matter because the shirt itself is not a threat.

But they did let him fly the next day. He was just put through the wringer because of his beliefs, expressed via a clever t-shirt.

Should have read the article.

The t-shirt wasn't the least bit clever. At first glace, it conveys the opposite of what he was trying to express. I'll point out I agree with his sentiment 100%. I'd even go so far as get rid of the TSA and allow me and other law abiding citizens to carry concealed onboard the aircraft.

The t-shirt wasn't the least bit clever. At first glace, it conveys the opposite of what he was trying to express. I'll point out I agree with his sentiment 100%. I'd even go so far as get rid of the TSA and allow me and other law abiding citizens to carry concealed onboard the aircraft.

So maybe the TSA can put out a list of "approved" t-shirts so we don't have to deal with this absurd waste of our, and the police jurisdiction's, tax money.

We all have quite a laugh at TSA's expense, the shoes, the bottles etc... it's a pain. Personally I curse Richard Reid every time I put my shoes on the belt.

You know who I've never heard laugh at the TSA measures? FAs. More than once FAs have talked about how the searches make them feel safe doing their job, and are grateful for this sense of security. Now whether this is justified or not is another question, but for all FAs who are spared the sight of looking at a customer with stupid crap about terrorists blowing up planes on his shirt while they are doing their job, I laud the captain's decision.

We all have quite a laugh at TSA's expense, the shoes, the bottles etc... it's a pain. Personally I curse Richard Reid every time I put my shoes on the belt.

You know who I've never heard laugh at the TSA measures? FAs. More than once FAs have talked about how the searches make them feel safe doing their job, and are grateful for this sense of security. Now whether this is justified or not is another question, but for all FAs who are spared the sight of looking at a customer with stupid crap about terrorists blowing up planes on his shirt while they are doing their job, I laud the captain's decision.

Richard Reid didn't make us take our shoes off, the TSA did. Where did you see anything on the shirt about blowing up a plane?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cY8bRdMRRok/TxGP3ffwrBI/AAAAAAAAAY4/PnaOPrgo3uc/s1600/picard-facepalm.jpg

Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 US (1941)
A citizen's right to interstate travel has long been recognized as a fundamental right, grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution.

Kent v. Dulles 357 US (1958)
The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.

Aphtheker v. Sec. Of State 378 US (1964)
Freedom of travel is a constitutional liberty closely related to the rights of free speech and association The constitutional right to travel has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution.

US v. Guest 383 US (1966)
The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily use the highways or other instruments of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. Freedom to travel throughout
the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.

Shapiro v. Thompson 394 US (1969)
This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulations which unreasonably burden or retrict this movement. It is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. It is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.

Griffin v. Breckenridge 403 US (1971)
Our cases have firmly established that the right of interstate travel is
constitutionally protected, does not necessarily rest on the Fourteenth
Amendment, and is assertable against private as well as governmental
interference.

Dunn v. Blumstein 405 US (1972)
Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution. (Affirming Guest, above)

US v. Davis 482 F.2D (1973)
It is firmly established that freedom to travel at home and abroad without unreasonable governmental restriction is a fundamental constitutional right of every citizen.

Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County 415 US (1974)
The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic
constitutional freedom.

Califano v. Torres 435 US (1978)
The constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually unqualified.

I thank you for your considered response. I think we can all agree that none of those decisions offer the complainant much protection in this instance, but certainly there are some requirements that commercial carriers should be aware of. They might consider themselves lucky that none of those concerns mattered in this instance.

The t-shirt wasn't the least bit clever. At first glace, it conveys the opposite of what he was trying to express. I'll point out I agree with his sentiment 100%. I'd even go so far as get rid of the TSA and allow me and other law abiding citizens to carry concealed onboard the aircraft.

It is clever, it copies the TSA official logo and badge and, on first glance the seal looks legit, and then you notice the tennis shoes and water bottle.

Maybe it's too subtle for you.

Is this one more to your liking?

http://www.cafepress.com/mf/46733194/tsa-liberty_tshirt

Or this one?

http://www.cafepress.com/mf/46771742/hey-tsa-pat-this_tank-top

It is clever, it copies the TSA official logo and badge and, on first glance the seal looks legit, and then you notice the tennis shoes and water bottle.

Maybe it's too subtle for you.

Is this one more to your liking?

http://www.cafepress.com/mf/46733194/tsa-liberty_tshirt

It's not too subtle. As others have pointed out, at first glance, all you see is "bomb" and "terrist" or however he spelled it. But, I do like the one you linked to!!!

I didn't read the article. I looked at the shirt and that was enough for me. If airlines let people wear t shirts on planes that say "bombs" "terrists" "gonna kill us all" then why not let people through security and on planes who are just ranting "bombs, terrists, gonna kill us all." No way people wearing or saying these things should be allowed to fly.

Imagine the lawsuits if they let one of these knuckleheads fly and then he actually did blow up the plane.
Imagine the lawsuits if they let a knucklehead wearing a t-shirt saying "I *heart* America" fly and then he actually did blow up the plane.

Imagine the lawsuits if they let a knucklehead wearing a plain green t-shirt fly and then he actually did blow up the plane.

Imagine the lawsuits if they let a knucklehead wearing a white shirt, red tie and black suit fly and then he actually did blow up the plane.

Or do you think it's easier to blow up a plane with a t-shirt that says "bomb" and "terrist" than with another kind of shirt?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Here's an idea, what about if they check people for actual bombs and weapons, rather than stopping them based on what their t-shirt says? Oh, wait, TSA did that at the checkpoint, didn't find anything worth stopping him for, and let him through. It was only the Chicken Little Delta agent at the gate who got nervous. So TSA checked him, his wife, and his carry-on bags again, didn't find anything again and said he was okay to fly as far as they were concerned. So Delta got the cops over to threaten him and make racist comments. And after all that, he still wasn't in possession of anything he could use to blow up a plane. Just a shirt.

Taken from Domestic Contract of Carriage, Rule 35 Refusal to Transport, paragraph F:

"....Delta may refuse to transport any passenger, or may remove any passenger from its aircraft, when refusal to transport or removal of the passenger is reasonably necessary in Delta’s sole discretion for the passenger’s comfort or safety, for the comfort or safety of other passengers or Delta employees, or for the prevention of damage to the property of Delta or its passengers or employees.

Intimately familiar with that and the entire COC. Not everything an airline claims in a COC is necessarily enforceable; nor does it universally inoculate the airline from being found in violation of a ticketed passenger's contractual right to fly. No reasonable person should be surprised if DL were to pay up in some form or another for this ridiculous involuntary denied boarding situation.

I didn't read the article. I looked at the shirt and that was enough for me. If airlines let people wear t shirts on planes that say "bombs" "terrists" "gonna kill us all" then why not let people through security and on planes who are just ranting "bombs, terrists, gonna kill us all." No way people wearing or saying these things should be allowed to fly.


Flight attendants and pilots "rant" about "bombs, terrists, gonna kill us all." No way they should be allowed to fly either? That's a lot of members at the core of the "anything for security" crowd you want to ground for having an opinion that is far more harmful than this shirt.

Flight attendants and pilots "rant" about "bombs, terrists, gonna kill us all." No way they should be allowed to fly either? That's a lot of members at the core of the "anything for security" crowd you want to ground for having an opinion that is far more harmful than this shirt.

I would have still let him fly but he could have picked a better t-shirt design to make his point about "security theatre".

I didn't read the article. I looked at the shirt and that was enough for me. If airlines let people wear t shirts on planes that say "bombs" "terrists" "gonna kill us all" then why not let people through security and on planes who are just ranting "bombs, terrists, gonna kill us all." No way people wearing or saying these things should be allowed to fly.

You just said all those things, so I guess you shouldn't be allowed to fly.

I would have still let him fly but he could have picked a better t-shirt design to make his point about "security theatre".

That is all in the eye of the beholder, and last week I may have agreed with you about the design failing to effectively make its message. But I have changed my opinion on that. Given what he experienced, the shirt design's message seems to have been validated by what prompted this situation at BUF a few days ago.

If anything, the reaction of the relevant DL personnel (involved in the situation at BUF at the time) verifies that terrorists have won over them. No terrorists defeated this Indian-American who has the courage of spirit not to join the rank and file of the "Anything For Security" mob.

Taken from Domestic Contract of Carriage, Rule 35 Refusal to Transport, paragraph F:

"....Delta may refuse to transport any passenger, or may remove any passenger from its aircraft, when refusal to transport or removal of the passenger is reasonably necessary in Delta’s sole discretion for the passenger’s comfort or safety, for the comfort or safety of other passengers or Delta employees, or for the prevention of damage to the property of Delta or its passengers or employees.
If "comfort" is to be interpreted in the way you claim, that clause is unenforcable due to its violating public policy. You can't exclude a black person, a person wearing religious items, or a gay person from a flight just because the presence of that person makes somebody on the flight "uncomfortable". Yes, DL is not a government actor and this was likely not a civil right's issue, but DL does have more responsibility than, say, a restaurant. If a restaurant refused to allow him in because of that shirt, there would be no issue.

However, because of the very fundamental right to travel (though, admittedly, not necessarily the right to travel by air) and that DL has been granted a license by the government to be one of a limited number of air carriers, they do have at least a moral (and probably legal) responsibility to not deny people for reasons that a government actor couldn't.

She then showed a picture of this woman, wearing her typical outfit: a t-shirt with a colorful slogan prominently displayed across the bosom. :D Was the woman's name "Pat" by any chance ?
I thank you for your considered response. I think we can all agree that none of those decisions offer the complainant much protection in this instance, but certainly there are some requirements that commercial carriers should be aware of. They might consider themselves lucky that none of those concerns mattered in this instance.I was merely addressing the "no right" contention and I agree it likely does not fit this case. There are conditions attached to the right, one of which is the requirement to abide by the carrier's CofC which in most cases states that a passenger can be denied/removed for a number of reasons, capricious or not.

But they did let him fly the next day. He was just put through the wringer because of his beliefs, expressed via a clever t-shirt.

Should have read the article.

But, CLEARLY, he wasn't dangerous the next day... because he wasn't wearing the shirt anymore.

Duh.

It's not often I sympathize with TSA and DL procedural stuff, but there you go. I feel sorry for them having to deal with people like this traveler, and I'm happy he has suffered the consequences of his attention seeking.

So let me get this straight, the guy wears a t- shirt that makes some anything for security kettle feel uncomfortable, Delta, the Ue shirted perverts, and airport cops over react and it is the op's fault? I guess that I am lucky that I have not been hassled when I wear my t-shirt that has a grenade on it. I would just love to have this situation happen to myself sometime. I have a very good friend who practices civil rights law and he would have a field day with this group of idiots in a court of law! Whether or not you agree with what the guy was wearing, there is still a first amendment out there that allows freedom of expression!

To the party quoted above, I am a Delta DM and wear t-shirts like this all the time. While always respectful to Delta staff, I would tell them to pound sand if they EVER tried something like this with me.

The pen is mightier than the sword - thing to remember though is that it is NOT a sword.
.

Tell that to the Israelis. They have recently been accosting reporters/writers from the NY Times who wrote negative stories about Israel, and upon their arrival in Israel, strip searched them and sent them back. Swords and all.

Whether or not you agree with what the guy was wearing, there is still a first amendment out there that allows freedom of expression!
Yes, but Delta is not the government, so it's not quite that simple.

What does "comfort" mean, though? Does it mean a vague unease born of ignorance and cowardice? Or does it have to be something real?

^

I think the shirt is amusing. I applaud the wearer for daring to express his opinion in front of TSA in a way that is not illegal, unsafe, or disruptive.

The reaction from the "uncomfortable" pax, TSA, et al. only reinforces the message of the shirt. Delicious.

To the posters that say that the airport is not the place to protest the TSA... :rolleyes:

The airport is exactly where the TSA should be protested, every day of the week.

--Jon

I wear this shirt on occasion when I fly in November and December. Apparently I'm just an attention seeker trying to be denied boarding too.

http://d3gqasl9vmjfd8.cloudfront.net/6b3b33c2-f56e-4de2-8e61-7ae0702044af.png

To the posters that say that the airport is not the place to protest the TSA... :rolleyes:

The airport is exactly where the TSA should be protested, every day of the week.

--Jon

^

I wear this shirt on occasion when I fly in November and December. Apparently I'm just an attention seeker trying to be denied boarding too.

http://d3gqasl9vmjfd8.cloudfront.net/6b3b33c2-f56e-4de2-8e61-7ae0702044af.png

now that's funny right there
:D

Imagine the lawsuits if they let a knucklehead wearing a t-shirt saying "I *heart* America" fly and then he actually did blow up the plane.

Imagine the lawsuits if they let a knucklehead wearing a plain green t-shirt fly and then he actually did blow up the plane.

Imagine the lawsuits if they let a knucklehead wearing a white shirt, red tie and black suit fly and then he actually did blow up the plane.

Or do you think it's easier to blow up a plane with a t-shirt that says "bomb" and "terrist" than with another kind of shirt?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Here's an idea, what about if they check people for actual bombs and weapons, rather than stopping them based on what their t-shirt says? Oh, wait, TSA did that at the checkpoint, didn't find anything worth stopping him for, and let him through. It was only the Chicken Little Delta agent at the gate who got nervous. So TSA checked him, his wife, and his carry-on bags again, didn't find anything again and said he was okay to fly as far as they were concerned. So Delta got the cops over to threaten him and make racist comments. And after all that, he still wasn't in possession of anything he could use to blow up a plane. Just a shirt.

^It's nice to hear a reasoned voice championing liberty from Australia! I fear that your rights are being usurped by your government as quickly as are ours here.

The last time that I flew into SYD, I was standing by the baggage carousel awaiting my luggage, when two intimidating CBP officers walked up to me and enquired as to my business in Oz. They then asked me if I had any fishing gear with me. When I answered no, one of them looked me sternly in the eye and said, "Are you sure?" I said, "Yes, I am sure. I have never fished in my life, and am certain that I don't have any fishing gear." They then told me how serious it would be if I was lying to them and commenced to search my luggage. ---What was that all about????:confused: Is there a big illegal fishing cartel invading Australia that I don't know about?

^It's nice to hear a reasoned voice championing liberty from Australia! I fear that your rights are being usurped by your government as quickly as are ours here.

The last time that I flew into SYD, I was standing by the baggage carousel awaiting my luggage, when two intimidating CBP officers walked up to me and enquired as to my business in Oz. They then asked me if I had any fishing gear with me. When I answered no, one of them looked me sternly in the eye and said, "Are you sure?" I said, "Yes, I am sure. I have never fished in my life, and am certain that I don't have any fishing gear." They then told me how serious it would be if I was lying to them and commenced to search my luggage. ---What was that all about????:confused: Is there a big illegal fishing cartel invading Australia that I don't know about?

Despite the fact that the Aus govt has introduced all types of invasive beasties into their environment, they are over the moon paranoid about foreigners doing it. It's possible they were concerned about fishing because of the various shellfish (zebra something or other) that might have contaminated your gear.

Despite the fact that the Aus govt has introduced all types of invasive beasties into their environment, they are over the moon paranoid about foreigners doing it. It's possible they were concerned about fishing because of the various shellfish (zebra something or other) that might have contaminated your gear.

Thanks for the info--that makes sense. I was also really confused as to how they profiled me as a likely fisherman among the hundreds standing around the baggage area--I guess I look like a fisherman.:rolleyes:

Maybe the BUF TSA was upset as it distracted them from their historic mission of drug smuggling.:D

I wear shirt.woot shirts all the time, I love them, some of them have occasionally drawn a glance at me, but never anything this outrageous lol.

Question:

Blonde hair, blue eyes. Does this guy have the same trouble?

Mike

Question:

Blonde hair, blue eyes. Does this guy have the same trouble?

Mike

I was going to ask the same question. I think he would not have had the same problems.

Question: Blonde hair, blue eyes. Does this guy have the same trouble?

Sadly, I would bet he wouldn't. Wasn't there a story about some Muslims who were held back for no reason last year (ironically, they were flying to a seminar on how to travel in a way that made other passengers comfortable, or something like that)? Does this ring a bell?

Question:

Blonde hair, blue eyes. Does this guy have the same trouble?

Mike

Not a chance.

there is a longstanding known, and in many places, WRITTEN, rule, about security-related jokes in airports. everybody knows the TSA is incompetent. everybody who travels frequently knows how absurd the rules are. and there are places, in life, to protest, to exercise your 1st amendment rights, to let everyone in power know just how you feel.

but if you actually care about getting from place A to place B, on time, you are a fool to also simultaneously make a stink in the airport about a t-shirt.

i'm sure people may disagree, on principle, but there's a choice you have to make here - principle or pragmatism. yes, our freedoms and rights are important, and so is getting home on the flight of my choice. with the tight timings and uptight travel workforce, you just can't do both in the same day.

i might have a different view if there was ANY chance this guy's t-shirt would actually change someone's mind, change a policy, make any difference whatsoever. instead, it sounds like he simply exacerbated the problem that he complains about - making ignorant strangers on the plane ever more uncomfortable. those other people on the plane will likely not understand his message and find even MORE things to be fearful of, thus counterproductively reinforcing the foundations of our silly security m.o. that he despises.

...They then told me how serious it would be if I was lying to them and commenced to search my luggage. ---What was that all about????:confused:You Ever Pick Your Feet In Poughkeepsie? (http://ask.metafilter.com/74526/What-does-it-mean-to-pick-your-feet-in-Poughkeepsie) I would guess it was a lame OZ-BDO tactic.

There are conditions attached to the right, one of which is the requirement to abide by the carrier's CofC which in most cases states that a passenger can be denied/removed for a number of reasons, capricious or not.But as a "common carrier", the standard for denial of service is higher. So although DL may remove the passenger, the reason for doing so can't be capricious. If it is, then the passenger has a cause of action against DL.

^It's nice to hear a reasoned voice championing liberty from Australia! I fear that your rights are being usurped by your government as quickly as are ours here.
Thanks, and I suspect you're right about the second sentence; not quite as quickly but in the same direction.

The last time that I flew into SYD, I was standing by the baggage carousel awaiting my luggage, when two intimidating CBP officers walked up to me and enquired as to my business in Oz. They then asked me if I had any fishing gear with me. ... ---What was that all about????:confused: Is there a big illegal fishing cartel invading Australia that I don't know about?
Wow. :confused: :confused:

As Darkumbra said, there's a lot of concern over quarantine, more than anywhere else I've traveled. But even so your experience is extreme.

I arrive at Sydney int'l 4 or 5 times a year, and while waiting at baggage claim usually just get a request to let the cute beagle sniff my bag, or a few questions to save me going through the main customs queue. ("Can I see your form? What kind of food? Chocolate from where? Okay, that's fine; when you get your bags you can use that door over there to exit." or occasionally "Can I see your form? What kind of engineer?") The attitude ranges from just-doin'-a-job neutral to polite to downright friendly.

Perhaps there was some particular concern about fishing based the origin of your flight and/or time of year and/or a big fishing competition or something? Beats me.

i'm sure people may disagree, on principle, but there's a choice you have to make here - principle or pragmatism. yes, our freedoms and rights are important, and so is getting home on the flight of my choice. with the tight timings and uptight travel workforce, you just can't do both in the same day.



We ensure that our freedoms are maintained through our steadfast application of principle. We surrender those freedoms to the government when we place pragmatism before principle.

The thing that really scares me about this thread is that the overwhelming reaction of the DL forum denizens was that someone expressing political speech deserved to be kicked off a common carrier. I think America is in much greater danger than I recognized before reading this thread.

Even worse, I assume these are at least somewhat frequent flyers. I would like to think they would have some antipathy towards TSA and security theater, if not natural sympathy for someone protesting the excesses of the TSA. Clearly that is not the case.

And I have to give kudos to the TSA for eventually coming to the right decision (twice) to allow this man to fly. Looks like someone in BUF understands the First Amendment. ^

The last time that I flew into SYD, I was standing by the baggage carousel awaiting my luggage, when two intimidating CBP officers walked up to me and enquired as to my business in Oz. They then asked me if I had any fishing gear with me. When I answered no, one of them looked me sternly in the eye and said, "Are you sure?" I said, "Yes, I am sure. I have never fished in my life, and am certain that I don't have any fishing gear." They then told me how serious it would be if I was lying to them and commenced to search my luggage. ---What was that all about????:confused: Is there a big illegal fishing cartel invading Australia that I don't know about?Any chance you were wearing one of these shirts? Because they SCREAM fisherman. Dad wears them all the time, and when he travels to Mexico, he is constantly targeted by touts trying to sell him a fishing trip. Ironically, he is serious enough about fishing that he arranged multiple days of fishing charters months ahead of time. ;)
http://www.southpacificflyrods.com.au/mediac/400_0/media/SP$20Shirts$202$20final.jpg

The thing that really scares me about this thread is that the overwhelming reaction of the DL forum denizens was that someone expressing political speech deserved to be kicked off a common carrier. I think America is in much greater danger than I recognized before reading this thread.

Sadly, you couldn't be more correct. The large number of people who are mindlessly willing to sacrifice their rights in the vain search for more security are a bigger threat to our country than the terrorists they fear.

Sadly, you couldn't be more correct. The large number of people who are mindlessly willing to sacrifice their rights in the vain search for more security are a bigger threat to our country than the terrorists they fear.

Indeed. And it is that terrorized AFS (anything for security) crowd which has been so extensively defeated by terrorism such that this terrorized AFS crowd demonstrates their own self-defeat by still helping terrorists -- even long-dead terrorists -- sow and/or feed on terror. No surprise they (and those increasingly on the airline industry's corporate and partner leashes) try to rationalize why this harmless shirt shouldn't be worn (at airports, on planes and/or who knows where else) -- surrender monkeys, the lot of them.

This incident at BUF is an example of what happens when people are defeated by terrorists: they behave in the manner indicated by the harmless shirt worn by the Indian-American who was hassled there a few days ago.

Whether or not you agree with what the guy was wearing, there is still a first amendment out there that allows freedom of expression!
Yes, but Delta is not the government, so it's not quite that simple.

You are correct that Delta is not the gov't but I would lime to have the opportunity to challenge a couple of things in their COC. While not an attorney, in cases like this if you file a lawsuit, you get anyone and everyone possibly involved. The individual cops, the department, the blue shirted perverts and the DHS, the flight crew and Delta. Let the judge sort it out.

Indeed. And it is that terrorized AFS (anything for security) crowd which has been so extensively defeated by terrorism such that this terrorized AFS crowd demonstrates their own self-defeat by still helping terrorists -- even long-dead terrorists -- sow and/or feed on terror. No surprise they (and those increasingly on the airline industry's corporate and partner leashes) try to rationalize why this harmless shirt shouldn't be worn (at airports, on planes and/or who knows where else) -- surrender monkeys, the lot of them.

This incident at BUF is an example of what happens when people are defeated by terrorists: they behave in the manner indicated by the harmless shirt worn by the Indian-American who was hassled there a few days ago.

Absolutely. The AFS appear to have no bounds for the right's and dignity they will surrender due to their fear.

To the Delta apologists out there: what a sad bunch of conformists you are!

Shame to Delta. The pax did nothing wrong.

A higher amount of shame to the police. Even when the halfwits at Delta cried foul, the police should be at least slightly educated about the law.

The pilot should have his diaper changed and relieved of duty immediately.

To the Delta apologists out there: what a sad bunch of conformists you are!

Shame to Delta. The pax did nothing wrong.

A higher amount of shame to the police. Even when the halfwits at Delta cried foul, the police should be at least slightly educated about the law.

The pilot should have his diaper changed and relieved of duty immediately.

Anybody that is too scared to fly because of a tshirt, probably should not be piloting a commercial passenger plane. Maybe driving a dump truck would be a better profession and be less scary for that individual.

You are correct that Delta is not the gov't but I would lime to have the opportunity to challenge a couple of things in their COC. While not an attorney, in cases like this if you file a lawsuit, you get anyone and everyone possibly involved. The individual cops, the department, the blue shirted perverts and the DHS, the flight crew and Delta. Let the judge sort it out.
My point was that there are three "levels" here. A random business (e.g., a restaurant) can exclude a customer for any reason they want unless it's because the customer is a member of a protected class. The government has to honor the First (and other) amendments. "common carriers", like an airline, are in a somewhat ill-defined space between those two.

Sadly, you couldn't be more correct. The large number of people who are mindlessly willing to sacrifice their rights in the vain search for more security are a bigger threat to our country than the terrorists they fear.

+1

Wasn't there a similar case several years ago involving a guy who had to change shirts in order to fly on a Jet Blue flight? And I understand Jet Blue paid a six figure settlement to make the lawsuit go away.

Well okay I read the article and it appears that the guy complied with the request (which I assume meant he changed into another shirt/T-shirt). So if he had complied with the request I could not see what the issue was especially if he was allowed to fly the next day.

I guess the airlines are not as anti TSA as i thought.

Woot brought the shirt back

http://shirt.woot.com/plus/threat-level-doctorow-1

I guess the airlines are not as anti TSA as i thought.

Delta has been very pro-TSA

If "comfort" is to be interpreted in the way you claim, that clause is unenforcable due to its violating public policy. You can't exclude a black person, a person wearing religious items, or a gay person from a flight just because the presence of that person makes somebody on the flight "uncomfortable". Yes, DL is not a government actor and this was likely not a civil right's issue, but DL does have more responsibility than, say, a restaurant. If a restaurant refused to allow him in because of that shirt, there would be no issue.

However, because of the very fundamental right to travel (though, admittedly, not necessarily the right to travel by air) and that DL has been granted a license by the government to be one of a limited number of air carriers, they do have at least a moral (and probably legal) responsibility to not deny people for reasons that a government actor couldn't.

I agree that Delta is not a government actor, and appears to only be bound by whatever contract it has made regarding boarding/transit. I also agree that Delta has moral and possibly legal obligations to not deny boarding because of what appears to be thinly clad racism.

But why not necessarily a right to air travel in the governmental context? Doesn't 49 U.S.C. § 40103 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/49/VII/A/I/401/40103) explicitly grant such a right?

But why not necessarily a right to air travel in the governmental context?The Supreme Court has stated that such a right exists, though many chose to ignore that finding.
UNITED STATES v. GUEST 383 U.S. 745 (1966)The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized....

The Supreme Court has stated that such a right exists, though many chose to ignore that finding.
UNITED STATES v. GUEST 383 U.S. 745 (1966)

Case from before 9/11, irrelevant.

We all have quite a laugh at TSA's expense, the shoes, the bottles etc... it's a pain. Personally I curse Richard Reid every time I put my shoes on the belt.

You know who I've never heard laugh at the TSA measures? FAs. More than once FAs have talked about how the searches make them feel safe doing their job, and are grateful for this sense of security. Now whether this is justified or not is another question, but for all FAs who are spared the sight of looking at a customer with stupid crap about terrorists blowing up planes on his shirt while they are doing their job, I laud the captain's decision.

You must not talk to very many FAs. I've talked to many, especially when wearing anti-TSA shirts in the past. There are a lot of them that aren't on board with what TSA does.

I've worn anti-TSA shirts for years. First one was a picture of Kippie with a dunce cap that said "Kip Hawley is an Idiot. The Bill of Rights still applies in airports depsite TSA's assertions to the contrary." I wore that in response to MKEBound's experience with TSA. I wore it for nearly 3 years, until Kippie was forced out when Obama was elected. I was never banned from a plane. In fact, most TSA screeners laughed at it and some even agreed. Many flight crew (pilots and FAs) agreed too. Yes ... even on DL.

I think I was even approached by a FAM once at BWI who laughed about it (can't confirm - but he fit the FAM profile).

I also met some FTers with that shirt.

I also wore one of TK's shirts with the body scan images on it and it said "The TSA Wants to See Me Naked!" They were a lot more sensitive to that one. It earned me retaliatory secondaries and other harassment from TSA that yes, put a chilling effect on my 1st amendment rights. At the same time, I was never hassled by UA or any other carrier, and it gave me an opportunity to talk with other pax and crew about TSA. All in all, it was a net positive.

Maybe my experience would have been different if I were brown. I'm a fairly typical looking middle aged white male. Maybe I was therefore seen as ok. I'd hope that anyone wearing what I did wouldn't be singled out because of color or ethnicity.

Bottom line is I was never a threat - I was just expressing my 1st amendment rights and peaceful protest against a government agency I didn't agree with. And TSA largely verified that as I always submitted to screening - and passed. Fortunately, most people got that. I wasn't looking for attention - I was standing up for something I believed in a nonobnoxious way which is my right as an American. People are free to disagree with me, and I welcome the opportunity to debate that. However, if you feel uncomfortable because you disagree with me, that's YOUR problem - not mine.

I stand proudly with the blogger.

Case from before 9/11, irrelevant.Ah, I forgot It Changed Everything™ including apparently discarding every prior Supreme Court decision or opinion.

This case didn't involve a state actor though, so there isn't a constitutional issue.

The cases mentioned state very clearly that travel is indeed a right. What the cases do not clarify is what modes of travel are a right. All modes, even walking, have their state imposed regulations which make travel safer for everyone. Air travel is no different.

As to the original post, my fellow TSO's cleared him for flight. After that its a customer service issue for the airline to deal with.

But I would like to nominate this thread for "Most Entertaining Thread of the Month"! What a HOOT!

Case from before 9/11, irrelevant.
I assume that's sarcasm. But I don't see the case explicitly establishing a right to travel by a particular mode. That's not the way I read the quoted text.

But why not necessarily a right to air travel in the governmental context? Doesn't 49 U.S.C. § 40103 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/49/VII/A/I/401/40103) explicitly grant such a right?
I find it hard to see exactly what that section does. Any law has to be understood in the context of surrounding statutes and the neighborhood here is such a hodge-podge that it seems hard to understand. You can't just look at the literal language here and jump to any conclusion.

I assume that's sarcasm. But I don't see the case explicitly establishing a right to travel by a particular mode. That's not the way I read the quoted text.We seem to interpret it differently; I see it as establishing the right to travel by any mode (of interstate commerce). I think if the Court had wanted to exclude one or more particular modes, they would have said so.

More recently, and thus perhaps relevant :rolleyes:, the 9th Court of Appeals (Gilmore v. Gonzales) concluded there was no constitutional violation because air passengers could still travel without identification if they instead underwent the more stringent "secondary screening" search. To me, that reads that had there not been that alternative then there would have been a 1st Amendment violation. YMMV.

(Gilmore should have been about 4th Amendment reasonableness but the plaintiff's lawyers opened the door to the 1st and the government successfully diverted the court. Straight out of Boston Legal).

I find it hard to see exactly what that section does. Any law has to be understood in the context of surrounding statutes and the neighborhood here is such a hodge-podge that it seems hard to understand. You can't just look at the literal language here and jump to any conclusion.I'm not sure that particular code has anything to do with being a passenger on an airline.

First, I am amazed at the number of posters siding with Delta ITT. Sad to see what has become of my fellow citizens.

Second, many seem to overlook the fact that he did relinquish the shirt, yet was still denied boarding. That tells me the shirt was just a convenient excuse, and that the real motive in denying him boarding was more likely either his political beliefs or his appearance.

Lastly, many posters have correctly noted that Delta, as a private actor, is not bound by the Constitution. I would add though that freedom of expression is not only a right protected by the Constitution, but also one of the highest ideals of American society as a whole. A cherished principle that, IMO, should be respected by all Americans, public and private.

So while Mr Arijit may not have cause to seek Constitutional remedy in a court of law, he is right in seeking to hold Delta to account in the court of public opinion. They have demonstrated contempt for the principle of free speech by punishing this gentleman for his political message, and I for one join him in condemning Delta's disregard for free speech and common sense.

I would note also that while Delta is not a public entity, Niagara Frontier PD and TSA are, and they should be held to account for having subjected this citizen to harassment and additional scrutiny based on a political message.

We seem to interpret it differently; I see it as establishing the right to travel by any mode (of interstate commerce). I think if the Court had wanted to exclude one or more particular modes, they would have said so.
I just went and read the whole case (383 US 745) rather than just that quote and feel even stronger that the court did not do as you suggest. The part quoted is near the end of the opinion. It states quite clearly that it is not meant to create a new right, but to acknowlege an existing one and refers repeatedly to the "right of free interstate passage" and similar language. The third from last sentence says
"But if the predominant purpose of the conspiracy is to impede or prevent the exercise of the right of interstate travel, or to oppress a person because of his exercise of that right, then, whether or not motivated by racial discrimination, the conspiracy becomes a proper object of the federal law under which the indictment in this case was brought. "
So the right being protected is "interstate travel", not "interstate travel by mode X" for any X. It's not that they didn't "exclude" any particular mode, but rather than there was no discussion whatsoever of modes. In other words, this is yet another case that acknowleged that there's a fundamental right to travel between states, but is completely silent on whether there's a fundamental right to do so by any particular mode. Saying it another way, acknowleging that a person has a right to interstate travel by one of an ennumerated set of modes doesn't necessarily mean a person has a right to travel by any one of them in particular, just that at least one of them must be available.

Look, for example, at the cases cited in Footnote 16. These clearly talk about the fundamental right of citizens to reside peacefully within a state and to move from state to state. At the time of those cases, there were two common modes of transportation: train and road. None of these cases address, in any way, the question of whether a person had the right to travel using either of such modes: they merely discussed the right that a person has to get in some way from state to state, but not necessarily using the mode of their choice. There's no statement in this case or in any of the cited cases that would establish or acknowlege such a right.

But also note that this is a discrimination case and there the standard is different. There doesn't have to be a right to do something for it to be illegal to prevent somebody from doing it for reasons of race. There's no fundamental right to be able to drink water from a water fountain, for example, but if a fountain is available, it's not permitted to say that only white people can use it. Clearly, the court in this case would have found it illegal to restrict air travel just to white people, but that would not imply a "right" to air travel.

Let me ask the question this way: let's suppose that congress, using its power to regulate interstate commerce, passed a new law that said that large portions of the interstate rail system were to be used only for goods and that passenger travel on such tracks would no longer be legal. Do you think that this case would make such a law unconstitutional? I don't. And I don't see any other case or argument that would.

It's important to understand the origin of these rights. One, more modern, theory is that the right to travel is part of the First Amendment's protection of free association, but the more traditional view is somewhat different. The whole theory behind the formation of the US was that each state would have different sets of laws and that if somebody didn't like the laws in one state, they had the right to move to another state. But nobody in that time would have argued that this produced the right to do so in any particular way: it was the responsibility of the people who wanted to move to figure out a way to do so and in those times, transportation was exceptionally nontrivial.

Let me make this already long post longer by giving another analogy. Everybody agrees that a US citizen who's outside the country has an absolute right to reenter the US. But does this mean that he has the right to do so at any point along the border? Can you argue that because the court didn't exclude the right to enter at some particular point that a right to enter at any point of the person's chosing exists? Or just the right to enter at some points? In other words, do you accept that the designation of particular places to enter the US doesn't infringe the right of a citizen to return to the US? It's similar here: the right to travel between states doesn't necessarily imply a right to do so in any particular manner, just that some way must exist.

Air travel is indeed special because it's sometimes the only practical way to do certain travel due to its speed and there are indeed cases working there way through the courts making that argument. We'll have to see how the Supreme Court rules if it takes one of them. It may well accept that argument, and perhaps even cite this case in doing so, but until that happens, I don't see that any court has acknowleged such a right.

I'm not sure that particular code has anything to do with being a passenger on an airline.
Most of it certainly doesn't and clearly relates to rights of pilots, but part of it talks about accommodation of disabled people on commercial carriers, so it's very confused. I think one would have to go deep into the legislative history here to understand that particular code: my guess is that that part was added later.

We'll have to see how the Supreme Court rules if it takes one of them. It may well accept that argument, and perhaps even cite this case in doing so, but until that happens, I don't see that any court has acknowleged such a right.We're at an impasse.
My lay reading is that, absent any specific exclusion, the right to travel applies equally to all modes and I really don't follow the argument about any implicit, unspecified prohibitions. So we'll leave it there.

I doubt that any pertinent case will make it to the Supreme Court. Lower courts and the DHS will collude to avoid the government being put on the spot and having to reveal its sensitive and secret (Gilmore) procedures.

It's possible that if someone were seriously injured or worse as a direct result of an airport checkpoint search such a case might make it to the top. Can't see how anyone else would have sufficient standing.
The other aspect is the No Fly List. If a US citizen on the list* is denied access to the domestic airline network purely on unproven 'suspicion' that would be a strong case.

(* the actual target not a hapless synonym)

We're at an impasse.
My lay reading is that, absent any specific exclusion, the right to travel applies equally to all modes and I really don't follow the argument about any implicit, unspecified prohibitions. So we'll leave it there.

I would agree with you here if there was a simple addition.

Every mode of transport, no exceptions, has its regulatory requirements and / or laws that govern what you can and cannot do while performing that mode of transportation or requirements that one must meet before using a particular mode of transport. Air travel is no different. Most, if not all, are designed for the safety of the traveler and any other member of the citizenry that may be affected by an individuals use of a transportation mode. Its been this way for more than a century. As each new mode of transportation has been added to our choices along with them have come restrictions and requirements.

In the case here, the ultimate authority on who can or cannot board an aircraft is the aircraft commander. To deny someone passage on his aircraft he / she must have a tangible and rational reason for the decision. In this case it was the comfort, and possibly the safety, of the other passengers on board the aircraft. It was his decision and his alone. None of us were there, we don’t know the entire situation or the series of events that led to the PIC’s (Person In Charge) decision, so any of us second guessing that decision is inane. We don’t have the requisite knowledge of that specific situation required to make such judgment.

In the case here, the ultimate authority on who can or cannot board an aircraft is the aircraft commander. To deny someone passage on his aircraft he / she must have a tangible and rational reason for the decision. In this case it was the comfort, and possibly the safety, of the other passengers on board the aircraft. It was his decision and his alone. None of us were there, we don’t know the entire situation or the series of events that led to the PIC’s (Person In Charge) decision, so any of us second guessing that decision is inane. We don’t have the requisite knowledge of that specific situation required to make such judgment.

While that may be true, that also doesn't preclude the fact that this may have been (and most likely is IMO) a bad decision on the captain's part.

What it comes down to is did the TSA do their job? In theory, if TSA did their job properly, then he should have been free and clear of any objects that could threaten a plane. We'll assume that they did in this instance, and he had nothing on him. The only thing that can be inferred is that the captain was afraid that he MIGHT do something based on the shirt he was wearing.

Now, we have a serious problem in this country if we start banning people on what they MIGHT do, even if there is no evidence that he has even planned to do something. Any person on that flight MIGHT do something, as no one can read minds and know what someone is really thinking. The reality is that a person who IS going to do something isn't going to dress up in such a way that they advertise that fact.

While not commenting on the validity of the SPOT program, I also find it likely that TSA had a SPOTnik there of some sort assessing the guy and didn't find him to be lying. TSA ultimately had no problem with him flying as they found no evidence of a threat. What it came down to is fear on the captain's part.

And I'm sorry, fear of what someone MIGHT or MIGHT NOT do isn't sufficient reason to bar someone from a flight. - Not saying you're saying this, just a general statement.

I would agree with you here if there was a simple addition.

Every mode of transport, no exceptions, has its regulatory requirements and / or laws that govern what you can and cannot do while performing that mode of transportation or requirements that one must meet before using a particular mode of transport. Air travel is no different. Most, if not all, are designed for the safety of the traveler and any other member of the citizenry that may be affected by an individuals use of a transportation mode. Its been this way for more than a century. As each new mode of transportation has been added to our choices along with them have come restrictions and requirements.

In the case here, the ultimate authority on who can or cannot board an aircraft is the aircraft commander. To deny someone passage on his aircraft he / she must have a tangible and rational reason for the decision. In this case it was the comfort, and possibly the safety, of the other passengers on board the aircraft. It was his decision and his alone. None of us were there, we don’t know the entire situation or the series of events that led to the PIC’s (Person In Charge) decision, so any of us second guessing that decision is inane. We don’t have the requisite knowledge of that specific situation required to make such judgment.

Clerk Ron, please don't weigh in on issues that are so far beyond your capacity to analyze. The fact that the aircraft commander is the ultimate authority doesn't mean he is not subject to oversight. He can, for example, be removed (which is what should have happened). The airline can be sued for race discrimination, and the captain can be put in the stand and questioned about the reasoning that led to his decision to exert his "ultimate authority" in the way he did.

I wasn't on the Titanic either, but I know enough about what was going on to know that it was running too fast for conditions.

We know all the facts relevant to the decision as to whether or not to keep Mr. Guha off the aircraft - namely, that he posed no threat to the aircraft or any passenger on it. Making racist passengers comfortable in their racism is not a legitimate application of the captain's authority - "ultimate" or otherwise.

...Making racist passengers comfortable in their racism is not a legitimate application of the captain's authority - "ultimate" or otherwise.Ideally (IMHO) what should have happened is that the complainers - the nervous nellies - should have been removed from the flight as potentially subject to OTHER mentally irrational behavior like extreme reaction to turbulence, an insect sighting, or bad dreams if they doze off.

When the true source of the problem is identified and dealt with - irrational over-reaction fueled by racism and prejudice, the rest of the nellies will learn to suck up and deal, or take THEIR problems elsewhere than the airports.

If earlier flight crews in years past had dealt with this syndrome with stern vigor, it would have prevented the mass hysteria we suffer with today. I don't want to fly with the risk of a ticking time bomb of nellie-ness near me. Do I need to report THEM as making ME concerned about the safety of the flight?

We're at an impasse.
My lay reading is that, absent any specific exclusion, the right to travel applies equally to all modes and I really don't follow the argument about any implicit, unspecified prohibitions.
Perhaps a better way to say it is that these cases say that the right to travel is "merely" a right to "travel", that the point of the right is that a person be able to travel. It doesn't require that the government allow the person to travel in any specific way. I believe, for example, that it would be within the powers of the government to say that certain Interstate highways could carry commercial traffic only as long as there were other Interstate highways that passengers could use to get from state to state.

In other words, saying "you have the right to travel from NY to Florida" doesn't mean "you have the right to drive to Florida on I-95" or "you have the right to take a train from NY to Florida": it simply means "you have the right that there be some way to get from NY to Florida".

I agree with TSORon's comments that various modes of travel can have rules and regulations, but don't see the necessary relevance of that to whether there's a right to travel by a particular mode. The courts are often asked to decide whether a particular rule or regulation infringes on a "right". The fact that there's some rule limiting X doesn't mean that there's no right to do X, but the absence of a rule doesn't mean there is such a right.

Perhaps a better way to say it is that these cases say that the right to travel is "merely" a right to "travel", that the point of the right is that a person be able to travel. It doesn't require that the government allow the person to travel in any specific way. I believe, for example, that it would be within the powers of the government to say that certain Interstate highways could carry commercial traffic only as long as there were other Interstate highways that passengers could use to get from state to state.

In other words, saying "you have the right to travel from NY to Florida" doesn't mean "you have the right to drive to Florida on I-95" or "you have the right to take a train from NY to Florida": it simply means "you have the right that there be some way to get from NY to Florida".

I agree with TSORon's comments that various modes of travel can have rules and regulations, but don't see the necessary relevance of that to whether there's a right to travel by a particular mode. The courts are often asked to decide whether a particular rule or regulation infringes on a "right". The fact that there's some rule limiting X doesn't mean that there's no right to do X, but the absence of a rule doesn't mean there is such a right.

Preventing someone from traveling via a certain means because of their skin color or beliefs would be unconstitutional however, and that is what we are dealing with here.

Preventing someone from traveling via a certain means because of their skin color or beliefs would be unconstitutional however, and that is what we are dealing with here.

Non-state actors are not in a position to engage in unconstitutional behavior as the Constitution does not restrict non-state actors in the manner it restricts the federal and/or state governments (and those with agency relationships thereof); however, the federal government is in a position to subject parties engaged in interstate commerce to (not) behave in certain ways if those non-state parties wish to operate without penalty and/or to utilize state resources.

Non-state actors are not in a position to engage in unconstitutional behavior as the Constitution does not restrict non-state actors in the manner it restricts the federal and/or state governments (and those with agency relationships thereof); however, the federal government is in a position to subject parties engaged in interstate commerce to (not) behave in certain ways if those non-state parties wish to operate without penalty and/or to utilize state resources.

Yes, you are correct. I was imprecise with my thoughts and should have more carefully worded my post.

If we wore a jacket over the shirt, and then took the jacket off as the plane lifted off the runway, they'd have to turn it around to make Johnny Peepants feel safe.

We're at an impasse.
My lay reading is that, absent any specific exclusion, the right to travel applies equally to all modes and I really don't follow the argument about any implicit, unspecified prohibitions. So we'll leave it there.

Perhaps a better way to say it is that these cases say that the right to travel is "merely" a right to "travel", that the point of the right is that a person be able to travel. It doesn't require that the government allow the person to travel in any specific way.
I think I understand Richardkenner's argument; one might say analogously "The right to free speech is merely the right to speak. It doesn't mean that the government can't limit the frequencies where you are allowed to broadcast radio." And clearly the government can limit some aspects of flying, thus the FAA, thus TSA security checks. But saying that the right to travel does not include flying on commercial scheduled air service goes way beyond that, and it would significantly restrict / diminish the right to travel as we know it in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Of course the government can build a cargo-only interstate highway and restrict travel along this venue to pre-cleared commercial cargo without violating the right to travel. Of course government can insist that anyone driving on a highway is properly licensed to ensure the safety of other drivers. But for a commonly accepted method of public transit, (like flying or riding a train) the government placing new restrictions on it that severely limit interstate travel, or forbid interstate travel to certain persons, is a different scenario entirely.

Surely there is some balancing test - the truth has to lie somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. If the only way that you are allowed to "travel interstate" is by walking across the state border at one specified point, surely that would violate the "right to interstate travel"? :confused: I would think a proper statement would be something more along the lines of "There is generally a right to travel interstate by any means, subject to constraints that facilitate legitimate/important government interests."

Even in Gilmore v. Gonzales, the only reason the "No Fly List" and asking for ID at security checkpoints were deemed Constitutional was that the passenger has the option to refuse to show ID, and instead submit to a more intensive security screening. The government interest is ensuring safe flights, and the convenient way to do this is ask for ID. But the only reason asking for ID is permissible is that there is alternative that does not interfere with the passenger's right to travel. To me, that says you have a right to fly on airplanes, but no right to fly on airplanes with anything considered 'dangerous' by the TSA.

So obviously there is a little more here than, "As long as you have some way to conduct travel interstate, we are not interfering with your right to travel." If the right to interstate travel did not apply to all common methods of travel, including air travel, they would have stated it in Gilmore instead of coming up with such convoluted logic to justify the "No Fly List".

Ink's extremist view:

Even if there is no explicit right to travel, there is no enumerated power that permits Congress to restrict our right to travel.

But, Congress does a lot of things for which they have no enumerated power to do. Congress is just another Constitution-free zone.

In the case here, the ultimate authority on who can or cannot board an aircraft is the aircraft commander. To deny someone passage on his aircraft he / she must have a tangible and rational reason for the decision.

I would love to see the captain's explanation of his "tangible and rational" reason in this case. A claim that other passengers were irrational is a valid reason to deny them boarding, not the victim of their irrationalities.

Perhaps a better way to say it is that these cases say that the right to travel is "merely" a right to "travel", that the point of the right is that a person be able to travel. It doesn't require that the government allow the person to travel in any specific way. I believe, for example, that it would be within the powers of the government to say that certain Interstate highways could carry commercial traffic only as long as there were other Interstate highways that passengers could use to get from state to state.

I think you are missing a key point: distinguishing among people. If the government shut down I-95 for a while, that would be much more likely to be legal than prohibiting people wearing anti-TSA t-shirts from traveling along it while allowing those dressed otherwise. Similarly, shutting down all air travel, or all air travel at specific locations (e.g. when AF-1 is arriving) is allowed; but that also does not discriminate among travelers.

In the raised level of paranoia that permeates all air terminals I've been in since 9-11, a stunt like this is just stupid, and a strip search is probably no more than this person deserves. Maybe rubber gloves and a soupçon of cavities, too.

In the raised level of paranoia that permeates all air terminals I've been in since 9-11, a stunt like this is just stupid, and a strip search is probably no more than this person deserves. Maybe rubber gloves and a soupçon of cavities, too.

What does someone who thinks the Constitution should be ignored due to stupidity/paranoia deserve?

What does someone who thinks the Constitution should be ignored due to stupidity/paranoia deserve?

If a US person, the punishment for treason may well be deserved.

The T-shirt was stupid. the TSA have limited power but they do have the power to slow things down, i.e. cause you to miss your flight. If annoyed that can use their limited list of pat downs, bag searches, etc. as a stall tactic.

Same with flight crew, an aging FA who's life didn't turn out like she wanted bars a young woman in a short skirt from flying. A threat to aviation if we're able to see where life originates when walking down the aisle towards her? I hope not or Al Qaeda will be looking for their next band of terrorists at strip clubs.

I'm unhappy as a traveler, between security theatre and delayed, crowded flights so I can only imagine that the TSA and flight crews don't really like their jobs compounded with reduced wages and benefits. It's not the same as getting to be Snow White or Mickey Mouse at Disneyland - no one looks forward to the whole process at an airport like a six year old looks forward to a theme park visit.

I maintain a low profile, try to blend in, smile and when the TSA gets surely I try tomchange their attitude with a kind word. if that doesn't work I polietly ask them not to blame me for a series of bad life choices that caused them to end up where they are today.

it's terrifying to see so many people on this board have had a reality AND sense-of-humour bypass op.

for me, big kudos to the guy.

I would love to see the captain's explanation of his "tangible and rational" reason in this case. A claim that other passengers were irrational is a valid reason to deny them boarding, not the victim of their irrationalities.
And then he has to explain to his boss that he allowed half the plane to stay behind and be rebooked because one individual made them uncomfortable. I imagine that would not go well.

And then he has to explain to his boss that he allowed half the plane to stay behind and be rebooked because one individual made them uncomfortable. I imagine that would not go well.

So how many people have to threaten to be disruptive in order to violate the rights of one non-disruptive passenger? Please put a number on it.

I think someone has to be pretty dense not to think that a shirt like that might cause a problem. There are terrorists. There are nut cases. So what would people here post the first time security ignores a T-shirt or suitcase sticker or whatever that features pictures of or language about bombs, security, explosions, guns, or related issues and the person does turn out to be some sort of nut who tries to take over or crash an aircraft?

I think someone has to be pretty dense not to think that a shirt like that might cause a problem. There are terrorists. There are nut cases. So what would people here post the first time security ignores a T-shirt or suitcase sticker or whatever that features pictures of or language about bombs, security, explosions, guns, or related issues and the person does turn out to be some sort of nut who tries to take over or crash an aircraft?

I guess on your planet I shouldn't read mysteries either, because their covers often feature such stuff.

So what happens the first time security ignores a man in a business suit and he turns out to be some sort of nut?

So what happens the first time security pays excessive attention to a woman in a short skirt, but lets her through eventually, and she turns out to be some sort of nut?

What are the relative odds of someone with a funny t-shirt being a terrorist compared with someone dressing so as not to be noticed?

So how many people have to threaten to be disruptive in order to violate the rights of one non-disruptive passenger? Please put a number on it.

If 100% of the passengers on that flight were nervous about the t-shirt, the correct response would have been to unload every one of them, apologize to t-shirt guy for the delay and take him to his destination.

I think someone has to be pretty dense not to think that a shirt like that might cause a problem. There are terrorists. There are nut cases. So what would people here post the first time security ignores a T-shirt or suitcase sticker or whatever that features pictures of or language about bombs, security, explosions, guns, or related issues and the person does turn out to be some sort of nut who tries to take over or crash an aircraft?

The same thing I'd post if anyone turned out to be a nut who tries to take over or crash an aircraft.

Mike

Most of {49 U.S.C. § 40103} certainly doesn't and clearly relates to rights of pilots, but part of it talks about accommodation of disabled people on commercial carriers, so it's very confused. I think one would have to go deep into the legislative history here to understand that particular code: my guess is that that part was added later.

Now I'm curious too...
The statute in question was enacted in by the 103rd congress in 1994 as H.R.1758 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=103-272). The text in question is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.
----------------------------------------------------

"...courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." [503 U.S. 249, 253-254]. Sure, congress could have hypothetically meant that only pilots had the right to "transit through navigable airspace", but if this had been congressional intent, it could have been explicitly stated. I find it hard to believe that congress sought to insure airport access to only handicapped pilots to further what it specifically designates a "right". I'm also not persuaded by arguments that congress did not have in mind commercial air transport when it designated a right to air travel, especially since it makes explicit references to it in the statute. In 1994 most of the people who traveled through the navigable airspace did so as paying passengers on commercial carriers. I don't see anything in the legislative history that suggests that congress did not intend the law to apply to them...and to us today.

Unless 49 USC § 40103 has since been repealed, struck down by a court or otherwise done away with, I think it still applies...for what it is worth. "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." A right to air travel may not be declared in the constitution, but it is declared in this federal statute.

Wow - hostile crowd here now. What happened to the old f- the TSA mantra?

Sad day to see citizens denied basic rights, i.e. right to travel unless they self-censor themselves. The guy wasn't advocating violence, he wasn't a threat to anyone, he was just wearing a wacky shirt with some rather esoteric political statements. The shirt was about as threatening as the "Bong Hits for Jesus" shirt that was the subject of a recent (and wrongly decided) SCOTUS case. For this he gets harassed by TSA and airport police and then denied boarding by a pathetic pilot.

The pilot should be terminated forthwith, along with the other characters in this story. Delta should be embarrassed, this is worse than Southwest kicking off "scantily clad" women.

This is ridiculous! If he was a threat with the shirt on, then he was a threat without the shirt. What gutless hypocrisy by the TSA and Delta!

Those who say that you don't have a right to fly, obviously missed the point that once the "offensive" shirt was removed, he did have the "right" to fly. Perhaps you should re-phrase your statement as, "you don't have the right to offend another passenger and fly", or more likely, "you don't have the right to mock the TSA, otherwise we will ruin your day"--It's total BS.

I saw a metal band at immigration control in Narita once that were on the same flight with me from ORD, and one of the guys was wearing a t-shirt that said, "Islam, the religion of peace?" on the front, and "Prepare to meet Allah" with a graphic of a terrorist on the back. I guess that celebrities are exempted from being jerked around by the TSA.

What a bunch of weenies we have become in this country!

+1

Taking a break from stupidity, there is intelligence in seeing how stupidly people react to a harmless shirt. It would be even more intelligent if he were to see how the reaction is different when a European-American is wearing that which an Indian-American could not wear that day at BUF without getting harassed for a harmless shirt.

The shirt is mild compared to some of the stuff that would result in a non-G rating if highlighted in a movie.

As I am taking DL from BUF, perhaps I should have my own study. :)

+2

Sad day to see citizens denied basic rights, i.e. right to travel unless they self-censor themselves. The guy wasn't advocating violence, he wasn't a threat to anyone, he was just wearing a wacky shirt with some rather esoteric political statements. The shirt was about as threatening as the "Bong Hits for Jesus" shirt that was the subject of a recent (and wrongly decided) SCOTUS case.
Agree completely. Whether the shirt was, in the opinion of someone, "stupid" or "threatening", it's just a shirt.
For this he gets harassed by TSA and airport police and then denied boarding by a pathetic pilot.
Well, he wasn't actually harassed by TSA (I know, hard to believe given their record); in fact it appears they let him through the checkpoint once without question, and when the DL gate agent wanted them to do something about his shirt, they still said it was just a shirt. The idiots in this story are the DL folks and the airport police.