DL passenger denied boarding due to t-shirt design
#152
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
But why not necessarily a right to air travel in the governmental context? Doesn't 49 U.S.C. 40103 explicitly grant such a right?
#153
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
More recently, and thus perhaps relevant , 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.
#154
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Programs: AA,AS,UA,Hyatt,Hilton
Posts: 1,246
three things...
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.
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.
Last edited by Top Tier; Aug 25, 2012 at 3:23 am
#155
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
"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. "
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.
Last edited by RichardKenner; Aug 25, 2012 at 5:50 am
#156
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
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)
#157
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
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 dont know the entire situation or the series of events that led to the PICs (Person In Charge) decision, so any of us second guessing that decision is inane. We dont have the requisite knowledge of that specific situation required to make such judgment.
#158
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
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 dont know the entire situation or the series of events that led to the PICs (Person In Charge) decision, so any of us second guessing that decision is inane. We dont have the requisite knowledge of that specific situation required to make such judgment.
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.
#159
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
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 dont know the entire situation or the series of events that led to the PICs (Person In Charge) decision, so any of us second guessing that decision is inane. We dont have the requisite knowledge of that specific situation required to make such judgment.
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 dont know the entire situation or the series of events that led to the PICs (Person In Charge) decision, so any of us second guessing that decision is inane. We dont have the requisite knowledge of that specific situation required to make such judgment.
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.
#160
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Programs: DL MM Gold
Posts: 1,676
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?
#161
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
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.
#162
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton ♦ , Hyatt Carbonado, Wyndham ♦, Marriott PE, "Stinking Bum" elsewhere.
Posts: 4,948
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.
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.
#163
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
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.
#164
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton ♦ , Hyatt Carbonado, Wyndham ♦, Marriott PE, "Stinking Bum" elsewhere.
Posts: 4,948
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.