Does This T-Shirt Bother You or At Least Cause Some Discomfort?

Except that you mentioned:

The airport itself doesn't detain people. I believe all the detaining is done by the Transportation Security Adminsitration, a part of the Department of Homeland Security. I suppose the FBI may also be involved. When we're talking about public sector reactions, sure you'll get angry stares or nasty comments maybe. I agree one should expect that. Getting detained or searched is a government action. And when you say you have a freedom of speech if you're willing to pay the consequences of persecution by the government -- well, that's a bit contradictory.

 

But that means that particular speech is not free. You can characterize it as akin to crying fire in a crowded theater. But, the point would be that, at airports at least, that particular expression is controlled.

(btw, I've got more to say regarding the irresponsible dog-abuse thread, but it seems quite dead now (the thread, not the dog), so I won't be reviving it.)

I'm not sure the yelling fire comparison is quite apt. I don't know if it quite comes to the level of causing a public rucus. And, if security is searching you because of your exercise of free speech short of that level of irresponsible speech, then it is persecution for the content of the speech and perhaps against the spirit of the Bill of Rights.

 

Why make assumptions about what they had in mind? If I disagree and say that was the exact thing they were thinking of, what then? To that end, we do have courts and all to decide, and there are probably similar cases testing these issues right now.

Actually, I think it is naive to think a shirt like that would cause a public panic. I think there would be a large group that wouldn't notice, another group that sees it and doesn't care, some people that don't like it and would let you know about it, and some people who would report you to authorities and/or refuse to fly with you. It is very unlikely that some disorder would occur -- like people fleeing or people attacking you. That is what I would consider a panic that would justify curtailment of your civic rights.

 

If free speech is not protected by society, then there is no free speech. Otherwise, Stalin allowed the right to free speech...he just sent his people in to lynch the 'free speakers' afterwards. This is akin to saying that Black men had the freedom to date White women, but they had to suffer the consequences. If citizens of a particular society can't reasonably expect to safely exercise their right to free speech without retribution by their government or fellow citizens, then in reality there is no free speech.

 

You're kidding, right? That's not the way it works. It never has, it can't. Free enterprise is a necessary part of a free society. If I go to my boss and tell him what he can do with his head, he can certainly fire me. If I go on the radio and call a women's basketball team, "Nappy-headed hoes", and I get fired, I got what was coming to me. If I go into your place of business and call your wife a nasty name, you should kick me out on the street. Similarly, if I wear a shirt that shows affiliation to a group that has used planes in terrorism, and the airline refuses my business, I got what was coming to me. I agree completely that the government shouldn't retaliate (with the understood exceptions), but if you take away the economic freedom of a private citizen to respond to political speech, you are nearly as oppressive as the one who takes away the freedom of speech to begin with.

 

Now... Couldn't you eliminate the word "free" from this paragraph and mean the exact same thing?

Is speech REALLY free-er in the USA?

Because it seems to me, from your post, that its not really free speach... It's just free when the authorities are not around.

Because, I could wear an "I hate Saudi" shirt at the Saudi airport, and would be subject to the same consequences.

Mehh. If it just said "Intifada" without the NYC, I dont think it would make ANYONE uncomfortable. Am I wrong?

 

Frente sandinista liberacion nacional. They were responsible for overthrowing the evil Anastasio somoza.

 

That's not what I am addressing. Yes, I know I can get fired if I told my boss to shove it.

Yes...

You completely misunderstood what I was saying. I am not arguing against taking away anyone's right to do anything, I am addressing the infringement on the rights of individuals because of unpopular speech/actions that are contrary to 'social norms'. So if a group of private citizens decide to go and lynch an interracial couple because they find their lifestyle unacceptable, that's not a protected form of expression. So while the couple could expect to be routinely harassed by members of society, they -- as citizens -- must have a reasonable expectation that they won't get lynched by an angry mob walking down a local street. And they, as citizens, should reasonably expect their government to protect against the infringement of their rights by their fellow citizens.

I am not talking about a workplace; that's not even a democracy to begin with.