Originally Posted by Carl Johnson

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.

Originally Posted by zombietooth

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.

Originally Posted by yohanson

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.

Originally Posted by NotHamSarnie

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.

Originally Posted by Wally Bird

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.

Originally Posted by yohanson

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.

Originally Posted by zombietooth

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

Originally Posted by jphripjah

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.

Originally Posted by OHDL1

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.

Originally Posted by jphripjah

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.

Originally Posted by GUWonder

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.

Originally Posted by jphripjah

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.

Originally Posted by yohanson

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

Originally Posted by OHDL1

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.