Agreed. It's being moved on over to the TSS forum.

Seat13C
JetBlue TrueBlue Moderator

Good lord, am I going to initiate a terminal dump by wearing my "drink milk!" Arabic t (complete with happy dancing milk carton) through security? Or will I be deemed to be a double threat for both promoting use of a scary foreign language and beverage containers greater than 3 oz? :D

To the posters legitimizing the restriction of "scary" languages and pictures: :rolleyes:

A lot of Americans now feel this way - it makes me sad to know that our core values have gone out the window for the sake of avoiding hassle.

I'm going to take a little different tack on this issue. This issue is really akin to the restaurant signs saying "No shirt -- No shoes -- no service." A business, such as Jet Blue, has the corporate ability to establish a dress code and to deny individuals service that don't meet their dress code.

My hat is off to Jet Blue for dragging the TSA into what is really a business decision. Fortunately, it was easy for them to do so, because of the TSA's overall gullibility and passion for the "Big Catch." B6 created a co-defendant and ensured that "national security" will be part of their defense rather than "just" discrimination.

If Jet Blue had simply told the guy he couldn't fly because they determined that his short crossed the line of their dress code, they probably could have gotten away with it. Even if they would have had to call the cops to "evict" the guy, the TSA would have been totally out of the discussion.

I wonder what reaction someone (especially an individual of Middle Eastern-looking ethnicity) would get wearing the tee shirt that says: "Regime Change Begins At Home"?

What terrorist is going to wear a t-shirt with arabic on it to the plane he's about to blow up?

It was a stupid thing to do, and the people who were frightened of his t-shirt are too stupid to listen to anyway, and should have been ignored.

There has been a long running thread in this forum on the subject so the two threads will be merged under the title of the original thread.


____________________


Cholula
Travel Safety/Security Forum Moderator

As a general matter, this is not true. First, you don't have an absolute right to send any message: e.g., if the message is a threat. Second, it also matters where you say it. You don't have the same rights to intimidate people and make a nuisance of yourself in an airport or on an airplane that you have on the street.

I don't have a strong opinion on this particular incident, which sounds fairly mild to me. So I'd like to address the issue more generally, and I'd appreciate it if any responses to my argument do not rely on the specifics of this incident.

IMHO, people who choose to make political statements at airports and on airplanes are behaving anti-socially. That goes double if the message has the effect (intended or not, and admitted or not) of intimidating people or promoting fear. For example, a T-shirt asking: "Will terrorists bomb your flight today?" would fall in the latter category. This sort of thing is extremely inconsiderate, and there is no reason that airlines or their customers should tolerate it. I call it political harrassment, analogously to sexual harrassment.

An aluminum can at 40,000 feet is no place for political demonstrations. Just my opinion, backed by common sense as opposed to legal argument.

First of all, that's wrong. Threats, absent something more, are privileged. Second, threats with more are in the same category as Brandenberg speech (speech carrying a likelihood of imminent harm, e.g. inciting to riot) and obscenity -- all are simply defined as "non-speech" as a matter of law, and therefore subject to regulation.

"Intimidating people" and "making a nuisance of yourself" has nothing to do with speech. That is conduct, and conduct may be regulated. However, you've made the leap to "initimidating people and making a nuisance." There's nothing in the facts available to the public that remote hint that's what he was doing.

He was wearing a t-shirt that some people find offensive. That's privileged under the First Amendment. Read the Cohen case.

Your argument doesn't rely on the specifics of this incident. It also misstates the law.

Sorry, but "political speech" is a core value of the First Amendment and is absolutely privileged as a right. There's is only one remedy for speech that you dislike, and this is more speech.

There's no such thing as "political harassment." The whole point of the First Amendment is to ensure that all political views can be expressed, debated, and examined for merit or lack thereof.

First of all, the person in this instance wasn't engaged in "political demonstrations." He was wearing a t-shirt. Second, I'm rather shocked at how readily you devalue the First Amendment. There's a reason for it, and it's not to ensure that you're never made uncomfortable by what you see or hear.

Not to be rude, but so what if the other passengers feel uncomfortable. Society is all about being surrounded by people that make one uncomfortable. Someone's tone of voice, body language, lecherous looks, body odor, blood alcohol level, etc can all make you uncomfortable. But someone wearing a T-shirt in Arabic somehow warrants an extra level of discomfort? Er, what's that word beginning in R and ending in acism?

bottom line is that this pax did not make a threat. his t-shirt simply said "we will not be silent" and that's it. it makes no mention as to what he is not going to be silent about but simply says he will not be silent. he did not yell fire in a movie theatre or make any overt or explicit threat to b6, the tsa or any passenger(s) but agin, he simply wore a t-shirt saying we will not be silent and that is protected under the u.s. constitution (tho dubbya and the ag a.g. might think otherwise but i digress)

i know it was posted before, but what it the t-shirt said in arabic something like "got milk" or "god bless america".....

protected (and n.b. the word protected) free speech is just that-it's protected until the law says otherwise-listen to PTravel as he is wise ;)

Get away with what, wearing a t-shirt? I don't understand. What happened to freedom of speech? Wearing a shirt with arabic writing is now akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater? Hardly. I hate terrorists and distrust people that don't look like me too, but, hassle people because of some non-threatening words on a shirt? Come on.... there is a thing called freedom of expression....

As is Goalie! ;) Actually, I'm not wise, just over-educated. ;)

Seriously, the importance of the First Amendment is with respect to speech that makes us uncomfortable. No one needs protection for popular speech, as there is no danger that the government will try to repress it. It is the unpopular ideas, e.g. ending slavery, protesting a war, advocating for minority rights, etc., that need protection. If the t-shirt in question made people uncomfortable, good! That t-shirt wearer understood the First Amendment and exercised his rights that it secures. The people on the plane were similarly free to wear t-shirts that said, "English only!" in response.

The t-shirt wearer didn't have a bomb, didn't threaten to take hostages, didn't interfere with the crew. All he did was express an idea. Not only is he allowed to do that, but the government is forbidden to stop him.

I find it preposterous that potentially offensive speech should be as free on an airplane as it is on the street. There are plenty of things I may say and do on the street that are not permitted on an airplane, for good reasons.

It's possible that some court will unmoored from reality will say that people can wear Nazi T-shirts on an airplane just like they can do on the street, but such a decision would still violate common sense. If you want to raise a fuss, do it outside, not on an airplane. I'm a great believer in the First Amendment, but the confined space of an airplane is not the public square.

Airplanes are operated as private businesses. Airlines can exclude passengers for any reason they want, as long the exclusion isn't based on discrimination against a protected class. The issue isn't whether Jet Blue would allow the t-shirt wearing pax on board, but their attempt to involve TSA. TSA is a government actor, Jet Blue is not. TSA can violate someone's First Amendment rights, Jet Blue can not.

Sorry, but I don't think you're a great believer in the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of speech." Jet Blue can do whatever it wants. TSA cannot.

If you read the Second Amendment literally, people would be allowed to own everything from bazookas to nuclear weapons. There are always limits, and common sense has a role to play in setting those limits. I contend that in the case of speech, the setting makes some difference in the limits.