Gargoyle

Nah, you're overreacting. I believe the OP is a U.S. citizen, so he has nothing to worry about; the TSA heirarchy can just belittle his concerns and laugh it off. It's only the non citizens who, if suspected of supporting or encouraging the enemy, can be declared "enemy non-combatants" and shipped off to secret prisons under the new law. Judging from your handle, you're a registered voter, and therefore a citizen. You have nothing to fear, so please ignore the man behind the curtain. Ziplock baggies are for your own protection.

BTW, welcome to Flyertalk! Stick around, and explore the rest of this site. Travel is freedom.

cme2c

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.a...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C

Again the presumption of innocence is a principle which is a "n. a fundamental protection for a person accused of a crime"

so what does accused mean?

http://www.answers.com/topic/accuse

"charged"



Suspecting and accusing are totally different. There is no law that says the government cannot suspect everyone. NONE.

nsx

My 2 cents:

OP was playing an undeniably funny practical joke. As practical jokes tend to do, this one hurt someone's feelings. Insulting someone whom you are relying on to provide you a service is both antisocial and ill-advised, even if the insult is completely true.

The law protects our right to be anti-social and insult people, but that doesn't make it either a good idea or a nice thing to do. That said, the TSA people were way out of line in taking the bait.

OP is like the city slicker who walks into a country bar, insults the whole town, and gets his block knocked off. He has every right to press charges, but in my book he's still the primary cause of the incident. He's using his rights as a sword rather than a shield.

And to think some people applaud this sort of thing.

cme2c

Again, you need to look up the definitions of the word.

Suspect:

1. To surmise to be true or probable; imagine: I suspect they are very disappointed.
2. To have doubts about; distrust: I suspect his motives.
3. To think (a person) guilty without proof: The police suspect her of murder.

We are not talking about making an arrest. Absolutely to make an arrest you should need evidence. We are talking about a security person "suspecting" or "imagining" that everyone is a terrorist.

essxjay

You mean, for example, "TSA Spokeshole, Yolanda Clark"? Unless Ms. Clark registers (and decloaks) here on FT, that's allowable within the TOS and (particularly) the rubric of this forum.

However, if ad hominems are slug at Bart or eyecue or anyone known to be TSA employees, then a warning or suitable time-out is warranted.

----------
essxjay
Travel Safety and Security moderator

Gargoyle

And you can count on a lot of us, even if we don't always agree with Bart or eyecue, immediately reporting the offending post to the mods and standing up to defend them. We may not always see eye to eye, but they are an important part of our community. ("I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" could be an FT motto, and symbolizes why 1st ammendment issues resonate here)

cubbandit

I've read the original message and the majority of the replies to this and I am stunned. First off, let me say that I also live in the Milwaukee Metro area and probably share the majority of the same Midwestern values that the original gentleman does. I also have been in the fire/emergency services for over 9 years. While it is true that EVERY American citizen has the right to free speech and that is a freedom that should be defended....ARE YOU KIDDING ME MAN? Did you HONESTLY think that your little stunt would create NO response? I am glad that you were detained!!! You can say anything you want, but part of that freedom comes the acceptance of any response that your comment may create. You either take the whole pie or you better not take a single piece! I would have hoped/thought/prayed that the recent 5-year anniversary of the September 11th attacks would remind us of how we felt, that "kick in the stomach" feeling I think all of us had on that day and the days that followed. And that they would have reminded us that security is not and should not be something that is taken lightly. In your mind, you may have known that your written comment was nothing more than that and was not going to go any further, but the TSA personnel did not know that!!! How did they know that your message wasn't some type of message similar to a person calling in a bomb threat or some cryptic suicide note or some challenge to the TSA to see if they could find some weapon you may have been trying to get on a plane? You can say anything you want, WITHIN REASON, as a matter of free space. But as one person who replied stated, you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded building. If I am standing at the gates of the White House and yell out that I think the President should be shot and killed at any chance I can get...do you think I am not going to be detained? Of course I am. Technically I haven't broken any laws, but I know I will be questioned at the very least. And once a person makes a statement like that, is any security official going to automatically believe you when you say "just kidding". You weren't arrested or charged in a crime, so that proves the First Amendment works, but again, if you are going to make such statements, be prepared for the consequences. Have your opinions, but keep them to yourself. I would rather those TSA people were overly cautious and detain someone like you than to just ignored it and let you on a plane not knowing what ELSE you may have been planning. I'm also guessing that all you people that immediately called for the original gentlemant to call the media and call the ACLU, if this guy had been let onto the plane with NO questions asked and had been carrying a bomb or something as a test of the TSA or as a further political statement, you would have been crying to the media that the TSA wasn't doing its job and how could they not have seen the warning signs that this guy might have been testing the security system. I've ranted enough here, but in the future, anyone deciding to try a stunt like this, please let the rest of us know what flight you will be on, so that I can make sure I'm NOT on it!

VADemocrat

No over-reacting here...just watch the news and listen to public radio. American citizens rights are being trampled all over the place. Have you not been paying attention to the last six years??? I don't think that this stunt with the message on the plastic bag was particularly smart, but he did have every right to write it.

As for only non-citizens having to be concerned, what about the fact that it IS the citizens whose rights are being squashed left and right. And the last time I checked, there were Americans being held in those "secret" prisons without the benefit of counsel.

Seahawk_6

Give me an f'ing break. Writing "Kip Hawley is an idiot" is a far cry from standing at the White House gates and screaming that the President should be shot.

And of course a person should be ready/willing to accept the consequences of their actions...but the question in this case is whether there should have been any consequences at all. And the answer is NO, there shouldn't have been.

Congrats OP...front page of CNN.com.

MovieMan

If you can see no difference between that act and writing "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on a baggie, then I am afraid any kind of rational argument would be lost on you.

Oh, welcome to FT!

dd992emo

Rubric??? Go easy on me, I live in Alabama....

Thanks for clarifying. Though I don't agree with the name calling and try to avoid it myself (probably not always successfully), your explanation helps me give the proper grain of salt to the entire discussion.

MKEbound

No, no secondary.

Bart

Deleted

cubbandit

maybe the President shooting comment was an extreme. But in my fire career I know I have detained people for pulling fire alarms as a prank and questioned them...I don't think that is any different that "Kip is an Idiot". Both actions, in the context and the environment in which they are made, call into question a person's motive. If the gentleman had written into a letter to the editor in a newspaper, or here on a Forum chat, that would have been fine and I would have said more power to you. But to do it so as to be seen at a security checkpoint, that changes everything.

And to the person that called me a "clown", thanks for keeping this chat line on an intellectual level!

ehasbrouck

Unfortunately, that's not correct: The government of the USA is using the "no-fly" list to prevent a native-born citizen from returning home to high school in California after a stay abroad. He's been couch-surfing with relatives overseas since April, when he was refused passage home. And the government has a regulatory proposal pending that would formalize its "right" to do this.