Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Man kicked off flight by pilot for wearing anti-TSA shirt

arijitvsdelta.blogspot.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: Man kicked off flight by pilot for wearing anti-TSA shirt

#81

Post by mikeash »

mturmon wrote: post #52
mikeash wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You can wear the shirt, but you can't be surprised when they single you out for more security checks. (Recognition and response to specific potential threats is what critics of "security theater" want, anyway.)" What? No. No, no, no. What we want is recognition and response to actual threats , not knee-jerk responses to anything unusual or non-conformist. A shirt like this doesn't indicate a threat. Smart security w…

I said "specific potential threats". Not "threats". I agree, the man is not an actual threat, and the agents should have seen that as well, eventually. Their failure to move on is a problem, but they did not write a blog post asking for sympathy. A red shirt with the words, "bomb", "kill", and "blood" is something that will get you noticed. It is not just "unusual or non-conformist", it specifically references securi…

Thanks for your comment on the blog. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but I thought you were pointing to the behavior of security people in this case as something that critics of "security theater" would prefer to see, when it's not at all the case.

Re: Man kicked off flight by pilot for wearing anti-TSA shirt

#82

Post by mikeash »

awj wrote: post #51
mikeash wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You can wear the shirt, but you can't be surprised when they single you out for more security checks. (Recognition and response to specific potential threats is what critics of "security theater" want, anyway.)" What? No. No, no, no. What we want is recognition and response to actual threats , not knee-jerk responses to anything unusual or non-conformist. A shirt like this doesn't indicate a threat. Smart security w…

> A shirt like this doesn't indicate a threat. Smart security would not single it out. How, again, is the goal of smart security advanced by making a big scene in a way that gets everyone who doesn't already agree with him to say "well, what did you expect "?

Why are you replying to me? I'm criticizing the response of the security people, not praising the actions of the guy with the shirt.

Re: Man kicked off flight by pilot for wearing anti-TSA shirt

#83

Post by benhoyt »

swdunlop wrote: post #32
benhoyt wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a time and a place for everything, including speaking freely. As another example, the time to be vocal about your disagreement with someone's policies is not by picketing their funeral.

Wearing a sarcastic t-shirt is equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church protestors trying to shout down a funeral?

Not equivalent, but parallel -- wearing a T-shirt joking about killing and bombs on a plane is equally out of place.

Re: Man kicked off flight by pilot for wearing anti-TSA shirt

#84

Post by vampirechicken »

grecy wrote: post #40
anigbrowl wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racism is one possibility, but so is anxiety about the guy's shirt and his attitude. Not very rational, but a cramped airline fuselage isn't the ideal place for your political protest. A snotty disregard for the concerns of others tends to make them unsympathetic to your point of view. As for why pilots have the power to boot people, it's because they're responsible for the safety and happiness of the passengers duri…

> a cramped airline fuselage isn't the ideal place for your political protest. Free Speech (but only when we say so)

"Congress shall make no law" does not say "UAL shall make no rules"

The idea is that Congress cannot criminalize speech. But the ramifications of your free expression, with respect to those people and institutions that you interact with, is not regulated by congress in so far as a crime is not committed in reaction.

Re: Man kicked off flight by pilot for wearing anti-TSA shirt

#85

Post by r00fus »

tonycoco wrote: post #60
mindslight wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While agreeing with that, Delta should still be held responsible for getting him to his destination on a reasonable schedule, the costs of his accommodations, and his and his wife's wasted time.

If Delta should be reasonable (getting him accommodations) shouldn't he also be reasonable next time he gets on one of their planes?

How is one to be sure what makes others uncomfortable? In your view, in th years after 9/11, Sikhs (who wear turbans) shouldn't have traveled at all... as they looked too much like the dreaded Bin Laden.

This way leads to fundamentalism.

Re: Man kicked off flight by pilot for wearing anti-TSA shirt

#86

Post by r00fus »

I wonder if he would have gotten on the plane by just wearing a "TSA can go grope themselves" shirt without the word "bombs" and other uncomfortable trigger words.

I'm pretty sure everyone hates the TSA - if it's made funny or largely agreeable it becomes a real test of their authority.

Then again, I wouldn't have the guts to do what this guy or the guy who got naked did.

Re: Man kicked off flight by pilot for wearing anti-TSA shirt

#87

Post by glenra »

DanBC wrote: post #41
Bud wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a lot to do with it, actually. My point is that if some speech, communicated by wearing a T-shirt and nothing else, is actionable, then perhaps other forms of speech should be actionable, too. This person did not "go out of his way" to cause an incident. He wore a T-shirt and that is all he did. "Making a statement" is ok. This is America. We supposedly protect that right, even when we do not agree with the…

You do not stand in a theatre and shout "fire!" unless there is a fire. You do not use the "bomb" word in an airport, unless you suspect something is a bomb. How many people need to be pulled off flights for people to understand that sometimes you just don't need to wear the t-shirt (that looks creepily white power) covered in BOMB DEATH KILL.

> You do not stand in a theatre and shout "fire!" unless there is a fire.

Do you realize that that particular constructed example comes from an argument that protesting the draft should be illegal?

(Incidentally, Penn Jillette quite regularly stands in his theater and shouts "fire!" when there is no threat. Most people aren't idiots most of the time, so it's not a problem.)

> How many people need to be pulled off flights for people to understand that sometimes you just don't need to wear the t-shirt (that looks creepily white power) covered in BOMB DEATH KILL.

Maybe it needs to keep happening until our airport cops realize they're being idiots and return to dealing with actual security threats. Assuming they can find any.

Re: Man kicked off flight by pilot for wearing anti-TSA shirt

#88

Post by ebrenes »

robotresearcher wrote: post #70
mindslight wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As air travel has matured into infrastructure that is generally depended upon, flying has become a right. Especially a return trip. Failure to see this is a deficiency with the narrow "base primitive" view of rights.

Should airline travel be available to all, irrespective of their ability to pay? If not, then it can't be a right, since rights can not be denied based on ability to pay.

If I don't pay for food, I die. If I don't pay for medicines, I die.

Does this then imply I don't have a right to live, because "rights cannot be denied based on the ability to pay"? That I don't have a right to property, because if I don't pay my debts my belongings can be confiscated and sold at auction?

I have a right to appoint my own counsel, but the government won't pay for the counsel I appoint. In order to use that right I have to be able to afford the lawyer I want.

US citizens have a right to run for elected office, but clearly that's not provided free of charge!

Rights are not irrespective or independent of my ability to pay. And if something is a right does not mean I get it for free.

Post reply on HN