Originally Posted by
FlyingNut724
Here are two Supreme Court cases saying that the right to free speech doesn't apply on private property: Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 519 – 521 (1976) and Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 80 (1980).
And of course the good ole 14 CFR Part 125.32 which states
"No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part."
Which has been used to stop people from doing all sorts of things, like taking pictures.
http://upgrd.com/matthew/thrown-off-...-pictures.html
You're confusing a lot of legal principles. Suffice it to say that it would be unconstitutional for Congress (or an agency, through delegation) to give a flight attendant's content judgment the force of law, and to permit someone to be arrested for not respecting that judgment. It doesn't matter that it occurs on private property. I (obviously) can't be arrested for saying something that a private individual on private property happens not to like. The arrest would be unconstitutional. It's quite simple.
The regulation you cite provides absolutely no support for the proposition that: "Per the FAA, you don't have the right to watch porn or anything else if the FA tells you to stop. The 1st amendment doesn't apply." And if it did, it would be unconstitutional.
Your citation to the photo story again illustrates that you're confusing state action and private action.