GUWonder

Well-stated posts, rich with information and thoughtfully-informed opinions, full of character (and characters), operating under the rules of FT, are what make this board worthwhile. Of course we're not going to always agree, but I don't think FT has a snowball's chance in Singapore of becoming anything like a party line message board. There are still people who will "act out", challenge the party-line, and do so effectively -- just like was observed in the OP. They'll even post on FT.

GoneOffShore

Be a good little sheeple and show your papers.

He who would give up freedom for a little security deserves neither.

RgnadKzin

This does not surprise me, as most lawyers do not bother themselves to actually read the law.
While it is true that there is no right secured by the constitution (not constitutional right) to board an aircraft, there is a statutory right recognized by CONgress: 49 USC 40101(c)(2)
Nothing is absolute, except for the assertion by pro-government extremists that my essential liberty has to take a back seat to your temporary safety.
We hold the line between right and wrong. You have obviously abdicated that responsibility. The reality is that we are less safe than we were when we were "allowed" to carry our personal arms on board an aircraft. Please tell me when the incidence of air piracy began, and its relationship to the federal regulations removing from us our right to protect our lives by disarming us on aircraft.
If 10% of the people on board flights were carrying personal arms, there never would have been a 9/11. I am an expert marksman and would not have missed at 25 feet. The TSA cannot protect anyone. They cannot guarantee anyone's safety. The only purpose of the TSA is to create the illusion of safety. I would be far safer if we could again carry our personal arms with us on board our flights. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the citizenry to protect this nation. Why abdicate that responsibility to anyone else?

2smrt4u

I gave up reading after the first 3 pages of nonsense and have no intention of boring myself with the "oh you should contact the media and the ACLU and your rights were violated.... blah blah blah" You see I stumbled upon this page as I was reseaching Logical Fallacies for a graduate course. The application of critical thinking is clearly not at use by most on this board. Mr. Bird's comments about Kip Hawley the individual are a bright and shining example of Ad Hominem. It shall make a great day of discussion in class tomorrow. Mr. Bird's personal attack on Hawley and all of you playing into it show just how screwed up this world is. Fight the real fight which is people breaking and challenging the rules. You want Hawley's job show me your qualifications and your plan but until then you'll not get the consideration of my listening to any complaint with ZERO solutions put forth.

GUWonder

Welcome to Flyertalk.

I would not characterize what happened as "a square off with the TSA", if only because of the connotations that such a phrase has. The TSA employees decided to make an issue of some constitutionally-protected writings on a plastic bag. If the TSA employees are sick and tired of the nonsense, then why did they take issue with a passenger's constitutionally-protected writing?

You also mention rules. The passenger in MKE was not breaking any rules. The rule-breaking, if any, was perpetrated by the government actors, who were acting in a manner not consistent with the highest law of the land -- namely the Constitution, which has that "disruptive" First Amendment. Don't like the First Amendment and the rights we have memorialized therein? Then try to amend it. Until you succeed, the Constitution is still the law of the land.

fly no more

Non-sense and boring yourself huh?

Well you haven't made your mind off this issue, eh?

I've read all the pages of the posts so far, as to understand all the opinions / views involved.

It's clear to me that you've already made your mind up long before reading any of the posts here, and nothing will change your mind.

It's okay to come here to spout off, but please do state the facts that your'e doing so than pretend you're here to do research.

SlowTrekker

THIS + THIS + THAT

Superguy

See my tag line. It's a quote by Abraham Lincoln (slightly modified to fit within the 125 character limit).

Superguy

There was a poster here a long time ago that had as his tagline "Don't you date trade my safety for your empty-headed principles."

Sounds familiar.

Superguy

Now THAT doesn't sound very academic. Obviously, if you're looking for research material and you're coming here for it, it'd be foolish to turn down such a repository that would support your thesis on logical fallacies, eh?

At least in my graduate school, they teach about critical thinking and having an open mind to various sides of an argument. Does yours not teach that?

Super

2smrt4u

Please spare me the psychobable of Constitutional Rights. You'd be removed from my house if you came in here talking trash about me, you can say what you want but you can't do it in my house. This would apply in most any setting. I can make you leave and you can do nothing about it, you are not protected by the constitution if you go into someone else's "house" and attempt to discredit or smear their name. Bird was protesting the rules and he did it by trying to smear Hawley's name. He may not have broken the rules at this incident but he clearly gave screeners the impression that he'd be willing to. It is what it is, he thinks that because he is a "normal" passenger that he is exempt from the rules, this kind of thinking will ensure he is treated like a common criminal.

hoyateach

Welcome to Flyertalk! ^

Out of curiosity, what are you studying in graduate school? Why is "Logical Fallacies" capitalized?

Okay, on topic: what is wrong with people "challenging the rules" (the line I bolded)? People have been challenging all sorts of rules since time immemorial and should continue to challenge rules and laws they believe to be unjust. What you're suggesting is blind obedience to authority, which is wholly un-American and completely antithetical to our way of life. Would you champion security screenings for anyone boarding a bus or train or for any personal vehicle crossing a bridge or entering a tunnel with equal fervor? Where do we draw the line?

The OP wrote five words on a piece of plastic - the screener was the one acting on behalf of the government and tried to prohibit that expression. Other posts have described the "chilling effect" this action had and how that action was therefore unconstitutional. I won't rehash their arguments here. Suffice it say that responses like yours, the "shut up, sit down, and don't rock the boat" responses, are truly frightening.

Superguy

The Constitution is psychobabble? Who died and made you Dear Leader? Or are you living in North Korea?

In a private setting, sure, you can say what you want and kick someone else out if you don't like it.

Hawley is a public official. He can be ridiculed per the first amendment. Much like someone can say Bush/Clinton/Kennedy/yourleastfavoritepolitician is an idiot. It goes with the territory. If they can't take it, then politics isn't for them.

The airport is a public venue and not someone's house. Therefore, the first amendment stands.

hoyateach

The difference is that you're a private citizen. In your home, you can do more or less as you please. The TSA screener, OTOH, is a government employee and, when on the job, speaks for Uncle Sam and enforces his policies. The government, more than any other entity, cannot prohibit the free expression of its citizens.

That's the issue here.

Gargoyle

In a police state that is a crime. In America it is not supposed to be. (when I'm driving, if I step on the accellerator, even if I am below the speed limit, I could be giving the impression that I'm willing to exceed the speed limit).

He did not break any rules. The screener and supervisor very clearly did break the rules.

Do your research. This has all been explained many times in this thread. The analogy of your home doesn't apply- that is a case of individual property rights. This is a very clear case of the first amendment, of goverment agents persecuting someone for having a political opinion with which they disagreed. (and it is the FIRST amendment because our founding fathers considered it the most important).

I know the constitution and bill of rights are pesky nuisances, but at the moment they are still the law of the land.