Orion

The seating is so cramped that once he is seated no one will be able to see the shirt.

Carl Johnson

No, he just didn't understand that there would be people to ignorant to understand what that shirt means. Look at it:

BOMBSZOMGZOMGTERRISTSGONNAKILLUSALLZOMGZOMGALERTLE VEL
BLOODREDTAKEOFFYOURSHOESMOISTURE

It's a stream of consciousness of a cowardly mind, that sees threats everywhere. He didn't understand that the plane was as full of cowards as it was, and he inadvertently got people to demonstrate the mentality mocked by the shirt. I mean you had passengers on the plane so cowardly they felt threatened by words on a shirt. The man had no weapons, had no means to harm anyone. But people so cowardly that the thoughts actually running through their heads were in fact BOMBSZOMGZOMGTERRISTSGONNAKILLUSALL ZOMGZOMGALERTLEVEL BLOODREDTAKEOFFYOURSHOESMOISTURE

were so threatened by words on a shirt that they couldn't fly with him without wetting their pants.

GUWonder

The huge difference is you said the angry vulgarities/expletives before being involuntarily denied boarding. He said the vulgar word after being involuntarily denied boarding.

Carl Johnson

No it doesn't.

Carl Johnson

I'm not really understanding what harm people believed the picture and words were going to cause, and how they were going to cause it. Can you enlighten me?

northwest_buckeye

No, I didn't. Are you drunk? I said "common f**king sense" on an internet message board. That is a huge difference.

And Carl Johnson, I guess everyone who disagrees with you is a coward for not seeing how cool and ironic this shirt is. Cool beans, man. Can we go smoke some Parliament's in the back parking lot after school and talk more about how the mainstream is full of cowards and posers?

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.

GUWonder

Indeed. It doesn't take genius and detailed statistical record-keeping and analysis to figure out for himself that he had worn the shirt at airports at least five times before without incident. There is no good reason for a person to conclude that the next time would be so radically different from his own prior experiences and that of others.

I can pretty much figure out the minimum number of times this communication device of mine has been on a plane without some paranoid "gutless little twerp[s]" working themselves into a frenzy because of it. Perhaps next time can be different -- just depends on others.

Carl Johnson

Haha, no, they're ignorant for not understanding what the shirt means. Seeing it as cool or ironic is a matter of taste, and chacun a son gôut.

They're cowards for being scared of a shirt.

The fact that they were scared of a shirt, though, does prove they have a correct understanding of how much the TSA contributes to security. If they believed the TSA did its job effectively, they wouldn't believe they had reason to be scared of another passenger, no matter what scary talismanic words were written on his shirt.

Carl Johnson

This case didn't involve a state actor though, so there isn't a constitutional issue.

northwest_buckeye

GUWonder and Carl Johnson... Have a good night getting your troll on. I'm gone for the night.

GUWonder

Yes, you did. Your choice of repeated communication of angry vulgar expression on an internet board before flying (again) makes some people uncomfortable. Welcome to being a candidate for involuntary denied boarding.

He was denied boarding before communicating any vulgarity here or at the airport. And yet you have not been denied boarding even after communication of the angry vulgarity? Shocking.

GUWonder

The state actors didn't deny him boarding. His contractual right to fly may have been violated by DL who did deny him boarding -- although I expect a settlement likely from DL if he pushed the matter as much as he could if he so intends to do.

Carl Johnson

Right. Contractual issues, plus maybe discrimination (addressed by statutes). Maybe the 1964 Civil Rights act if it can be demonstrated that the pilot was motivated by racism.

Darkumbra

The pen is mightier than the sword - thing to remember though is that it is NOT a sword.

If we have become afraid of words, then we must be equally afraid of thoughts. I don't really want to live in a world where our thoughts alone can define us as a credible threat.