Man sues the TSA and B6

[PTravel]

Originally Posted by ND Sol

While I will agree with you that it is not a First Amendment issue with respect to Jet Blue, as a common carrier B6 is held to a higher standard and may not deny transportation arbitrarily. I don't think that B6 is correct in its decision in this case, just as it cannot just deny transportation to people with blonde-dyed hair. I have also read about those other clothing cases as well, but I am unaware that any of them went to trial and each of those were certainly pushing the envelope further IMHO.

We're talking apples and oranges here. You're talking about whether they should. I'm talking about whether they could. My understanding of common carrier law (which, admittedly, is limited) is that common carriers cannot deny transportation to people because they are members of a protected class, i.e. B6 could not deny transportation to Jarrar because he is an Arab, as national origin and race are both protected classes. I'm aware of no restriction on denying passage for other reasons. For example, an airline could deny transport because a passenger doesn't meet a dress code, isn't traveling for business, has a camera with them, or is carrying a blue carry-on instead of a red one. I don't have the time right now to look up the common carrier statutes, so I may be wrong, but I don't think that I am. If someone can point me to a cite to a relevant statute, either pro or con, I'd be very interested to see it; I'm quite comfortable providing snotty, pedantic answers about First Amendment law as that is part of my practice area -- common carrier regulations are another story.

[goalie]

Originally Posted by PTravel

Goalie, that's not quite correct. The traditional venue for speech is termed a, "public forum." Public fora include such things as sidewalks and street corners, public parks, bandshells, etc. Most of these are, of course, government owned. The government cannot engage in content-based speech discrimination in public foras (at least absent a "compelling state interest," "least restrictive means," etc.). If the Nazis want to hold a rally in Central Park in New York, they can, as long as they comply with the same permitting and other requirements applied to other groups. Some government-owned facilities are considered "quasi-public fora," i.e. not traditionally intended for free speech purposes, but a location where they can occur. An example of a quasi-public forum would be a court house -- the government cannot engage in content-based discrimination in a quasi-public forum, either. Cohen v. California is an example of such a case. During the Vietnam era, Cohen showed up at a California courthouse wearing a jacket that said, "F___ the Draft" on the back. He was removed (and possibly arrested, if I recall correctly). The U.S. Supreme Court, reviewing the case, upheld Cohen's right to this particular form of expression on the ground that it was protected under the First Amendment. Like Cohen's jacket, Jarrar's t-shirt was worn in a quasi-public forum, an airport. It is settled law that the government may not engage in content-based speech discrimination at airports (Presumably, talking about bombs and hijacking meet the "compelling state interest, least restrictive means" test -- I'm not sure if it's ever been tested for constitutionality, though). Jarrar's right to express himself by wearing a t-shirt containing the phrase "We will not be silent," either in English, Arabic or any other language that he chooses. The government is forbidden to interfere with this right.

Of course, as you note, Jet Blue is not subject to any such constraints and can bar Jarrar if it chooses.

i sit in my crease corrected. what i was trying to say, and let me use this as an example, was that instead of me flying my american flag off my balcony (which i do), if i flew a nazi flag instead? no body can tell me i can't as it's my property as opposed to a park or sidewalk, right? no different than a church putting up a manger display on church grounds-it's not my religion, i may not like it* but it can't be taken down.

*doesn't bother me-just trying to use for the example

[PTravel]

Originally Posted by goalie

i sit in my crease corrected. what i was trying to say, and let me use this as an example, was that instead of me flying my american flag off my balcony (which i do), if i flew a nazi flag instead? no body can tell me i can't as it's my property as opposed to a park or sidewalk, right? no different than a church putting up a manger display on church grounds-it's not my religion, i may not like it* but it can't be taken down.

*doesn't bother me-just trying to use for the example

Exactly right. They also can't force you to fly an American flag if you don't want to. (But they probably can make you trim your grass. )

[ND Sol]

Originally Posted by PTravel

We're talking apples and oranges here. You're talking about whether they should. I'm talking about whether they could. My understanding of common carrier law (which, admittedly, is limited) is that common carriers cannot deny transportation to people because they are members of a protected class, i.e. B6 could not deny transportation to Jarrar because he is an Arab, as national origin and race are both protected classes. I'm aware of no restriction on denying passage for other reasons. For example, an airline could deny transport because a passenger doesn't meet a dress code, isn't traveling for business, has a camera with them, or is carrying a blue carry-on instead of a red one. I don't have the time right now to look up the common carrier statutes, so I may be wrong, but I don't think that I am. If someone can point me to a cite to a relevant statute, either pro or con, I'd be very interested to see it; I'm quite comfortable providing snotty, pedantic answers about First Amendment law as that is part of my practice area -- common carrier regulations are another story.

Don't you remember the common carrier cases related to railroads from law school? So no, they can't deny you transport because your carry-on is blue. A common carrier is generally required to use the highest degree of care, diligence, and vigilance in the transport of its passengers to the appropriate destination. Generally speaking, whatever discriminations are made must be on some principle or for some reason that the law finds to be just and equitable and grounded in sound public policy.

[PTravel]

Originally Posted by ND Sol

Don't you remember the common carrier cases related to railroads from law school?

Well, yeah, kind of.

So no, they can't deny you transport because your carry-on is blue.

That's not what I remember.

A common carrier is generally required to use the highest degree of care, diligence, and vigilance in the transport of its passengers to the appropriate destination.

I remember that.

Generally speaking, whatever discriminations are made must be on some principle or for some reason that the law finds to be just and equitable and grounded in sound public policy.

I don't remember that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you cite me to something? What I remember about common carriers relates to standard of care in the context of negligence which, of course, is not applicable to the t-shirt incident. What little I can recall about discrimination involved Title VI and/or Title VII, neither of which involve speech issues.

[sailman]

What the TSA and JetBlue really need is a more scientific and accurate litmus test for denying travel. Clearly from the various posts above appearance and attire do not meet the high standard desired by the DHS, TSA and the airlines.

During the late '30s and early '40s a lot of research was devoted to phrenology, and it was vigourously used to identifying undesirables, retarded individuals, and certain ethnic groups, with a high degree of confidence.

So why not stop wasting our time with constitutional debates and money on these arbitrary decisions, and go right to the real science. The Germans did!

Stay the curse!

[dhuey]

This guy never should have been hassled for what was on that shirt. It's a little ominous, but not explicitly threatening, and not offensive.

Having said that, when an activist finds himself in such a situation, you can't help but be a little cynical. Is it unreasonable to think that Raed Jarrar wanted all of this to happen, and very badly? He seems like he's a lot smarter than the people he was dealing with, and probably knew the best way to make others do the dumbest things possible.

That doesn't negate how he is still in the right here. It does, however, make me have a lot less sympathy for him than, say, a situation where someone whose appearance or customs cause other to harass them, when all they were trying to do was go about their daily lives.

[tsadude1]

I cannot comprehend why a TSA employee would even get involved with this in the first place. Kids come through with some pretty raunchy stuff and get on the plane but that's because many adults do not realize what the shirts say.

[bocastephen]

I didn't have time to read the entire thread, but I was really not surprised how the two FAs were playing their 'chicken little' parts so well. If these FAs are so concerned about what is written on a t-shirt, then I think alternate employment is a better option since it sounds like any real emergency would really throw them for a loop. Writing 'the world is a different place now' just exacerbates that whole paranoia.

As to members of the general public taking offense or being scared of seeing 'Arabic' writing...grow up and get a life.

What happened to America the brave? Is it now America the Stupid and Paranoid? I don't think that was the original vision for this country.

I hope this guy takes B6 for a big stack of cash, but I won't take odds on his chances making the TSA pay for their getting involved unless he files harassing suits against the screeners as individuals just to try and force them into bankruptcy with high legal bills. I say go for it.

[nickvora]

So true - I can't tell you the number of times during air-travel, I hear the phrase "due to security" followed generally by the most inane unrelated item. The FA that suggested that the T-Shirt would have been unsettling and inconvenient and whatever else to the other passengers on board - c'mon.

While I agree that Free Spech doesn't necessarily translate to the airplane - and if this guy got up during the flight and started exclaiming how terrible the US was and the war etc. etc. - I would see it as a public safety issue. however, Passive speech - in the form of a T-Shirt that you can choose not to read if you desire - c'mon really!!

So next trip - if I were a "I've got a crush on Obama" or "Vote for Giuliani" t-shirt OR something more provactive let's say "Chertoff is a Hero" [trust me I don't feel that way] - wouldn't that upset a significant % of people in the airport. Based on this forum the last "T-Shirt" would probably come close to pissing off 100% of the contributors to this forum!?!! So should I be banned from wearing it - kicked off??

C'mon sheeple... why are we so quick to forget history... As Benjamin Franklin put it: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - I'm shocked that this phrase isn't used DAILY by the news media - it may be old but it's apt.

And lastly - the part where one of the FA's talks about "you have to feel safe..." - they nailed the entire TSA's mission - forget real safety, it's all about making sure that the masses "feel" like they are doing something about "safety" - so REAL-ID, banning liquids etc. is the result... when the truth is that a terrorist could easily walk on board with no luggage / carry-on's etc. and do the same thing they did on 9/11. The biggest "safety measure" - reinforced cockpit doors, and people/staff on board that are likely to "take matters into their own hands" if someone threatens the security of the plane...

Originally Posted by bocastephen

I didn't have time to read the entire thread, but I was really not surprised how the two FAs were playing their 'chicken little' parts so well. If these FAs are so concerned about what is written on a t-shirt, then I think alternate employment is a better option since it sounds like any real emergency would really throw them for a loop. Writing 'the world is a different place now' just exacerbates that whole paranoia.

As to members of the general public taking offense or being scared of seeing 'Arabic' writing...grow up and get a life.

What happened to America the brave? Is it now America the Stupid and Paranoid? I don't think that was the original vision for this country.

I hope this guy takes B6 for a big stack of cash, but I won't take odds on his chances making the TSA pay for their getting involved unless he files harassing suits against the screeners as individuals just to try and force them into bankruptcy with high legal bills. I say go for it.

[nkedel]

Originally Posted by gfunkdave

If you read the second amendment literally, people should:

a) be allowed to only carry such arms as the Founding Fathers were familiar with

w00t! I always wanted a 18lbr smoothbore cannon

b) be compelled to serve in the armed forces or other "well regulated militia", since that is the purpose given for allowing people to bear arms.

That's questionable, and a matter of whether you read the first clause as a dependent clause or an independent one:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Since it's written ungrammatically, and there's fair reason to believe that it was left intentionally ambiguous at the time, your point "B" is just ONE reasonable interpretation.

[Wally Bird]

Originally Posted by nickvora

So next trip - if I were a "I've got a crush on Obama" or "Vote for Giuliani" t-shirt OR something more provactive let's say "Chertoff is a Hero" [trust me I don't feel that way] - wouldn't that upset a significant % of people in the airport.

I'm tempted to try this... http://www.localyokelshop.com/prod_i...ColorZoom1.jpg

[Landing Gear]

Originally Posted by nickvora

So next trip - if I were a "I've got a crush on Obama" or "Vote for Giuliani" t-shirt OR something more provactive let's say "Chertoff is a Hero" [trust me I don't feel that way] - wouldn't that upset a significant % of people in the airport. Based on this forum the last "T-Shirt" would probably come close to pissing off 100% of the contributors to this forum!?!! So should I be banned from wearing it - kicked off??

Almost got it right.

Special for FT members: "Kip Hawley is a Genius" t-shirts.

[GeneralAviation]

[quote=gfunkdave;8230313]If you read the second amendment literally, people should:


b) be compelled to serve in the armed forces or other "well regulated militia", since that is the purpose given for allowing people to bear arms.



In the 18th century, the words "well-regulated" meant "well trained."

Also, every able-bodied male was automatically considered to be a member of the unorganized citizens militia.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[n4zhg]

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/3...html?s_src=RSS

On Wednesday, March 19, 2008 the Department of Transportation (DOT) completed its investigation of Mr. Jarrar’s incident with JetBlue. It found that JetBlue subjected Mr. Jarrar to discrimination by changing his seat from the front to the back of the plane. DOT noted that "the fact that other passengers or crew have a feeling of discomfort or uneasiness that can be attributed to an individual's skin color, race, ethnicity or clothing that may be indicative of an individual's race, ethnicity or religion (e.g., t-shirt with Arabic writing, turban) is not a justifiable reason to deny boarding to that individual or to require that individual to accept restrictions such as sitting in the rear of the aircraft in order to be allowed to fly."