I think there can be limits to speech in certain situations and I understand the fear that the captain, and the industry in general have. It's a paranoia but it's an understandable breed and one that at least needs to be acknowledged. That being said, what the guy did was dumb. He needlessly drew attention to himself and while in principle what he did was fine, it's not that necessary to send some symbolic message when we nearly had some terrorists try to blow up a plane with liquid explosives. However, while the t-shirt would probably draw strange looks, it's stupid to throw him out because of it. So if a guy in traditional Islamic garb with a big beard walks on, do we throw him out? How about women with burkas? Suppressing clothing seems like such an arbitrary and unnecessary step that does little to actually combat terror and does more to feed the self-fulfilling prophecy of paranoia. It makes sense to have heightened security measures but do it in the right places. One month after 9/11, my cousin nearly got in to the country on an expired visa and had to tell the customs official that he was looking at the wrong page in his passport. One time in Richmond, the metal detectors stopped working so in order to expidite the process they just hand-patted some people and let them go. I can't even describe how many times I've seen security checkpoints covered by security guards who either aren't paying attention or are just overworked. There are real issues to fix and the ones listed above are just a few. But wasting time profiling clothing may be one area that we can avoid wasting time on. It only distracts from real issues that deserve our attention.
Guys, I understand your positions on free speech, which is and should be regarded as one of the founding principles of this country. However, let's face it, free speech is not absolute, even in the most "free" country in the world. After 9/11, everyone, except maybe the terrorists, got paranoiac to certain degree. The airline industry as a whole happened to be the biggest victim to this tragedy. The airline industry needs to keep to run the business and people around the world need to travel. Common sense says of all three kinds of means of transportation (land, sea, and air) air travel remains the most vulnerable to attacks and disturbances. I can see two categories of people who travel by air: those who fly for the sole purpose of travelling from A to B, and those who don't. It's safe to say 99.99% (insert more "9"s after the decimal point if one likes) of us belong in the first category. In the second category, there are air marshals whose job is to keep flights safe and there are those who want to do exactly the opposite. Perhaps you still remember the killing of an innocent bipolar man by air marshals at the Miami Int'l Airport not long ago. The plane was stationary when the shooting took place. The "rationale" for the killing was the poor guy was acting irrationally and "suspiciously" while waiting for the take off and then trying to run away into the airport when ordered to stop (recall that all the initial "reports" of bomb threats were simply false). Insanely tragic. Then there was another incident recently that a flight to Boston was diverted and escorted by fighter jets because a woman on board said or wrote something stupid. Do terrorists take more delight over temporary self-restraint on free speech by passengers and/or somewhat arbitrarily imposed restriction by the airport security than the ultimate self destructions and disturbances caused among ourselves while we travel by air? If a gal has metal piercing on her private parts, isn't her freedom of expression getting violated when she has to be forced to expose herself to total strangers -- aka airport security personnel -- to show that the alarm causing stuff between her legs is not a bomb? As much as I sympathize with the T-shirt guy's grievance about the enormous and undeserving sufferings of the Iraqis caused by this unjust war, I'd say to him you gotta listen to the security and be a little considerate to others on the flight. He could be trolling (neutral meaning here) around the airport or at the gate before boarding so everyone on the same flight has a chance to see the message on his T-shirt. But is it really necessary to have it visible on a plane? He could even remove the covering T-shirt to show the original one as soon as the plane has landed. Seriously, how much do you actually lose when you just stop broadcasting your controversial political views on a flight, for at most 18 hours? Let's not also forget airlines in the U.S. are privately owned and operated.
Bottomline, airplane is private propoerty. You buy the service by buying your tickets, but airline still has the right of regulation of the service. Just like some clubs has special attire requirement or can kick you out for wearing jeans, airlines reserve right to such regulations. It was a dumb thing to do. Yes. Had the passenger been white and the writing been in English, we would probably see better the real concern of the security. But it's within their right to do so.
Even being a private owned company I don't believe any of their regulations have a prohibition in place on Arabic writing. I also don't know that if they tried to make Arabic writing prohibitted that it would be allowed to do so. I believe some private clubs (for instance) have had to modify their restrictions in the past. They could put a dress code disallowing t-shirts, but maybe not one disallowing arabic writing.
I hope he sues the crap out of them. How uneducated can some people be. I wonder what they would have made him do if he has an arabic tattoo on his arm!
Yeah - like it or not, US law does not allow private property to be an excuse for discrimination of this nature, i.e. racial/ethnic. (Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act)
No, they don't have regulations in place prohibiting Arabic writing, but it's still under their discretion. You can ususally find such language under "terms of services" in small prints somewhere. It would be hard to prove it's racial or ethnic in nature just by itself.
It is most certainly ethnically discriminating. Otherwise we'd see a whole lot more europeans in trouble for their shirts. And "terms of service" does not absolve someone from liability. If microsoft's EULA allowed for them to steal your firstborn, and you clicked "accept" anyhow, that does not mean they are now free to kidnap. That all being said - it is a VERY fine line. And you have a point. But I don't really think that matters. The bottom line isn't "they can do what they like via property rights". The bottom line is "how does a t-shirt constitute a security risk?".
The key word is discretion. I happen to think the man will have a hard case to prove, however dumb that decision was. But I'm no lawyer, if the man does have a case to sue Jetblue, I say go for it. We are talking about refusal of service, not kidnapping, are we?
It's called "example ". I can write in fine print at my restaurant "I don't serve women" but that won't make it legal. Two things and then I'm done: 1) I understand your point. Yes businesses have the right to refuse service, but not arbitrarily or in a discriminatory fashion wrt "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin". Yes it is not surprising that he ran into some problems with security - but often that is a great way to reveal injustice (see sit-ins during the civil rights movement). 2) Everything above being said, your point is not germane to the argument. It's not about "does he have solid grounds to sue" (at least not for me), it's about how TSA (and in many repects, our nation as a whole) is irrationally allowing fear to overrule common sense. A t-shirt is not a security concern, and "We Will Not Be Silent" is not the same as "I am a bomber". More importantly, this inability to distinguish between being cautious and being irrationally zealous is providing an easy outlet for discrimination. And this is always the way it is rationalized - "he should have seen it coming", "it's private property", "we're at war" - and on and on until 50 years from now we look back on it and can't believe we let ourselves be that primitive. So I don't care if it can be rationalized or excused because of some petty and momentary inability to be logical and fair. Those are not good enough reasons to justify discrimination - and I'd hope a country with our rather sordid history regarding discrimination would be quicker to recognize and abhor it.
This guy was not being stupid. He new he would probably be harassed in some way. The fact that he is wearing a T-shirt that says "We will not be silence" is pretty clever because that is indeed what they did to him. So now he can point out the irony of the "land of the free" violating his most basic right to free speech while wearing a shirt about free speech. Also the guy was not stopped by airline personel. He was stopped by the TSA which is a federal agency. They should be the last people to violate the Constitution since it is the executive branches top duty to uphold the rights of the Constitution.
Rhada's doing a fine job on the argument, so I'll just point (if someone hasn't done so already) the irony that the "we will not be silent" slogan and the organization that uses it is now a lot more popular now because of this fiasco. They have to be liking the free press.
It's pretty sad how our country has become when Arabic words on a shirt at an airport equals bomb or snakes on a plane. Then again, a Black American who wears a doo-rag automatically equals gangster or thug to some people. We should bar all Blacks sporting doo-rags from entering banks or convenience stores because the locals get restless.
Its like saying the word "bomb" on an airplane. Whether you mean it or not, the authorities have to take it as a worst case scenario....makes it safer for the rest of us who dont dress like a-holes.
his shirt didn't say anything like "bomb" or anything threatening at all, unless you believe that freedom of speech is threatening. I am happy he wore the shirt, and if I had a dozen of them I would hand them out and get as many other people as possible to wear them as well. Freedom of speech should not have to cowtow to people's prejudice and paranoia. That is true on a plane, airport, bank, school, mall... etc. He wasn't yelling fire in a crowded theater, he wasn't threatening anyone or anything, nor did his t-shirt.
Yeah well i guess some people other than just me thought otherwise...sucks for him ok....so you would be dealt with the same way...as would your genius friends who decided to get on an airplane with the shirt in question....excellent idea it does on airplanes in the year 2006...in case you were wondering an iraqi guy wearing a questionable t shirt saying that he (meaning his people) will not be silenced on a US flight....hmmm....yeah lets just let it slide...what could go wrong? Tell ya what....make your own t shirt and go try to get on a plane mr. Freedom of Speech and see what happens. This is America...year 2006...precautions are taken...deal with it or find a better place to live.
if u say so I dont understand how you people get up in the morning and deal with such totalitarianism here in the US....why not move?
