I'm with Moose on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
Printable View
I'm with Moose on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
Lets take this very same atmosphere and slap on yet another popular misconception, that so happens to fit very well:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellyrose
"The photographer was taking pictures of airplanes and that's socially destructive and therefore was aiding terrorism. He could've chose to take good hearted pictures of flowers yet became an instrument of death for 9/11"
Mike, I think you're missing the big difference here.
My perosnal belief, my gut feeling, my opinion, is that this guy put that shirt on with the intent to cause trouble. I feel he knew when he put that on in the morning that he'd get questioned. He got all the publicity that he wanted, and he was lucky enough to still make his flight.
When we go spotting, we go with the intention of enjoying our hobby, not with the intention of causing trouble.
Legal or not, constitutional or not, what he did was in poor taste and antagonistic. Him going through second screening and being asked questions does not violate his constitutional rights, and although free speech is a constitutional, he does not have a right to express himself on an airline, as it's not public property.
So I ask...what is the problem? I fail to see why this is such a big issue.
Also, from what I read in the newspapers, he was an admitted ACTIVIST. There's no way he didn't put thought into wearing that to the airport, to "prove his rights."
Good. Neither did the authories.Quote:
Originally Posted by K9DEP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellyrose
I've been quiet about it and gathering facts and in light of the fact that he's an activist, I have to side with Phil and Mel.
Both points duly noted.
Its easy to see any of us, especially myself, can be headstrong. We will love or hate as our emotions fuel that passion. And by doing so certain elements can be overlooked, ignored or exaggerated.
That's one of those great things we can do under the Constitution, ya know, that silly paper someday is going to wipe there heiney with and flush it away.
Love, Peace and Airplane grease!
I love you Mike! :)
I'ts all good!Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
I think those flights to the USA will all be fine Nonstop... however, its funny you bring this up.."Western" carriers to the Middle East have to be very careful not to offend muslim sensibilities...
http://www.nycaviation.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1494
showing/having crusifixes or bibles etc... quite understandable actually in a country that has religious police push female school children back into a burning building because their faces are not covered.
No need either to get into all this racial stuff.. I believe the abolitionist movement was born in the USA (and UK).. certainly not much slavery nowadays - apart from places like the Sudan...anyway..
Some citizens in the US are certainly prejudiced of course, and many are far too foolishly alarmed by people of middle eastern appearance -although much of that it has to be stated is derived by continued plots and acts of violence by islamists throughout the US and indeed worldwide.. - plenty of it well after "911".. and plenty of it before.... Neither muslims nor Americans have an exclusive on gaining a poor reputation.
I have read the young man's blogs/website btw and it certainly appears he is a "make a difference" peacenik moreso than an in-your-face" activist, and I do agree his rights were violated by having to change his shirt in this instance, but in the greater scheme of things, not the end of the world...(for him, the US, civil rights in general, muslims in the USA, jetBlue, TSA etc..)
Tom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonstop2AUH
What you read in news articles and this persons blog is a one sided story. This guy was looking for the attention. JetBlue, the Port and TSA received numerous complaints from passengers even before he reached the checkpoint. He was made a selectee by JetBlue. He went through the checkpoint and the complaints continued.
A JetBlue Rep, Port Officer and TSA Inspector went to speak to the person in response to these complaints. In my opinion the person was treated very well. He was advised of the problem and given solutions so he could still fly and the other passengers would feel comfortable. JetBlue could have just refused to allow him to fly, end of story. The persons involved tried to explain the problem using and analogy which was conveniently used against them in the blog and jumped upon by the news.
This person went to the airport with full knowledge he would cause a stir. He would have loved it if he was handcuffed and dragged away but instead he was treated with respect but he still needed to complain.
JetBlue, PAPD and the TSA needed to respond to the complaints. If they hadn't they would have been delinquent in their duty. They balanced the rights of this person with the rights of the rest of the passengers.
I've been holding back a bit of my thoughts so that I could share it in this week's editorial.
http://nycaviation.com/editorials#derner090306
Golf Clap to Phil :D
I read Phil's editorial and I found it a little disturbing. You have to preface this by remembering how Phil reacted when he saw "somebody that appeared middle eastern" videotaping from a bridge which prompted him to call 911. I felt this to be an overreation, I also fail to see how a shirt thay says "we will not be silent" would lead you to believe that he was about to initiate some sort of action, whether written is Arabic or not. I don't think that is the case at all. Freedom of speech can not have consessions. I don't see why someone had to cover up their shirt to baord a plane that said something like that. He went through screening and had no weapons so let the damn guy fly. So who cares if his shirt made some pax nervousor drew suspicion? Doesn't our spotting make some people nervous and some suspicious? What does that mean? We have to stop? No. We have to stop this paranoia already. It's getting worse.
Nick many times we have to stop spotting and move on; remember your encounter a few weeks ago? The police made you move on. This is a case of clear social responsibility, which this gentleman didn't display any of. An airport is no place to display your political beliefs. Also just because you passed security doesn't mean you can't be screened or questioned again and asked to remove certain things from your possession.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
People have been asked to change their shirts before getting on planes for wearing T-shirts that say F**K you. I know this may come as a shock to some but there still is some etiquette when it comes to traveling. You are locked in enclosed space with people it’s simply respectful to dress tastefully and act in a respectful manner. His T-shirt sent a disturbing message to the passengers. jetBlue and the TSA did the right thing in this case.
They did let him fly. They could've held him as long as they wanted and he would've missed his flight or worse, but all they did was make him cover up his shirt.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
"Who cares if his shirt made some passengers nervous?" Are you kidding? An airport/airplane is not exactly the most appropriate place to take the "get a grip" attitude with people. If something draws suspicion, there's usually a valid reason. Better to be safe than sorry, in my opinion.
Let alone the points I've already beat to death about how this guy was obviously desperate to create controversy.
So freedom of speech stops when you enter an airport?Quote:
Originally Posted by t-bird
This has nothing to do with this discussion, totally different situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by t-bird
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-bird
Say's who? Just because some people find it to be doesn't make it so. If you are going to profile you have to still keep somewhat of an open mind.
No Melanie, that is not the case, this "better safe than sorry" attitude has gotten to the point where people rights are being trampled. Big time.Quote:
Originally Posted by mellyrose
Your points don't show that at all, this guy just wanted to fly home, not create anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by mellyrose
Correct, Nick, you do not have the full flexibility of your rights beyond security checkpoints at the airport.
His rights were not trampled. Being detained against your will with no charge and not getting your phone call is having your rights being trampled. Not a discussion and the changing of a t-shirt.
Your right, but making him change or cover up his shirt was trampling his rights. Clearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by phil d
He may not have had a weapon upon clearing security but I can tell you that to aquire one once inside the sterile area is not a challenge if you have a ramp rat on the ramp. There are many airports including most major ones where the rampers do not have to clear TSA to get out the the sterile area and who is to say that they did not plant somthing but wither way I think this guy was an idiot and what he got he got I do not feel bad for him nor do I care about his shirt though. He knew it was going to create issues. That is like me dressing up as an Arab Sheik and going to work. Not good common sense, would it be illegal? No certainly not but would it be smart? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
I think "trampling" is a bit much. Maybe a tiny sacrifice. Maybe. But it's a t-shirt.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
This guy made a big deal out of nothing because he wanted more hits on his anti-war website, bottom line.
Not entirely, but yes...to a degree - just like your right to bear arms stops as soon as you enter an airport or any other sensitive area. Certain behavior is just not appropriate for certain scenarios.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
Well Nick, you are entitled to your opinion. I wasn't implying that my points proved anything...they're just my opinions - like yours.Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellyrose
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
I think that if you read a bit more into this, and directly from his website, you'll see that he IS an activist and I find it very hard to believe that a grown adult with half a brain wouldn't realize what they are doing by wearing that shirt to the airport.
Simply, yes. For example, you can't say "bomb" in an airport. Sure, what his shirt actually said was not threatening. But as every single attack on American civilian aircraft has been perpetrated by men around the same age and communicating in the same language as was on this guy's shirt, the passengers' reaction of fear is totally reasonable. jetBlue is in business to get passengers from point A to point B comfortably, not to make them fly in frightening conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
The free speech comparison to photographers is moot. Photographers arouse fear, but the fear is that they are involved in plotting and planning, not that they are imminently launching an attack while standing at the airport with their cameras. The fear aroused by a guy actually on an aircraft about to climb 8 miles into the air is much more serious, as people begin questioning whether they are going to die, what it's going to feel like to get blown up, how their families are going to cope without them, and whether or not they did enough with their lives. Not pleasant stuff to think about for even a minute, nevermind a five hour flight.
Wow, you could profile just a bit more? Very scary to see we are bahaving in this manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by gothamspotter
Where do you get your information? Do you poll every person that gets nervous or feels threatened when they see us at the airport? You guys really have to stop trying to make these generalaztions fact, because they are far from it. Just because you perceive a certain situation as dangerous or threatening doesn't make it so, and it just goes a long way to prove that the terrorists are winning by instilling fear in our minds when see someone doing something perfectly within their rights at an airport. To have a knee jerk reaction every time we see someone of middle eastern descent that appears to be doing something suspicious is really sad. If you have this suspicion by all means screen them twice but once you find they are not a threat or have no weapons let them go on their way. We have a FedEx pilot who is a member here and I tell him this stuff with our encounters with PA and such and he gets sick.he likens it to Nazi Germany where we will all have to show our papers in public when someone in law enforcement feels it necessary or thinks we look suspicious. It's lunacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by gothamspotter
Nick, it's not inappropriate to "profile" as Gotham did if it's FACTUAL. It's not as if he's being racist or irrational.
Seems as if you're just hiding from the truth if you feel as though all of this is an over-reaction.
It's not a knee-jerk reaction if the TSA or the general public is practicing caution based on recent events.
When white haired grandmas from Topeka start bombing planes then I'll stop profiling.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
I speak from a somewhat intelligent person's point of view. Anyone with common sense will not see a camera as an immediate threat to their lives.Quote:
Where do you get your information? Do you poll every person that gets nervous or feels threatened when they see us at the airport?
It doesn't make it so, but it does make it uncomfortable. The only way to prevent someone willing to die is to keep an eye out for suspicious characters.Quote:
Just because you perceive a certain situation as dangerous or threatening doesn't make it so...
Us being vigilant does not mean they're winning.Quote:
and it just goes a long way to prove that the terrorists are winning by instilling fear in our minds when see someone doing something perfectly within their rights at an airport.
I can think of far worse "knee-jerk" reactions than banning the guy from the plane.Quote:
To have a knee jerk reaction every time we see someone of middle eastern descent that appears to be doing something suspicious is really sad.
Airlines can deny people boarding for many reasons. If they thought the comfort of their passengers was an issue, they were within their rights to do so with this guy.Quote:
If you have this suspicion by all means screen them twice but once you find they are not a threat or have no weapons let them go on their way.
To my knowledge, while some people have been harassed, and even detained, no one has ever been arrested for photographing planes from public property.Quote:
We have a FedEx pilot who is a member here and I tell him this stuff with our encounters with PA and such and he gets sick. he likens it to Nazi Germany where we will all have to show our papers in public when someone in law enforcement feels it necessary or thinks we look suspicious. It's lunacy.
Nick that couldn't be farther from the truth. It is not a right to fly, it is a privilege and that privilege can be taken away at the discursion of the flight crew. If they felt for whatever reason they didn't want him to fly they can stop him from flying and there's nothing he can do about it. The Capts. decision supersedes his rights, that is the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
And were does it end? I'm uncomfortable with a young African-American man on board because I was mugged by one once, so he needs to get off the airplane?Quote:
Originally Posted by GothamSpotter
I think those reasons need to be spelled out in their Contract of Carriage (which, conveniently, isn't available on JetBlue's website) If they deny boarding for some arbritrary reason, they can be in trouble.Quote:
Airlines can deny people boarding for many reasons. If they thought the comfort of their passengers was an issue, they were within their rights to do so with this guy.
I hear this reference in complaints a lot, as though people are expecting everything to be perfect. Laws are all made in a way so that they can be interpreted for case-by-case situations, and this is no different.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
You can't compare a mugging where one person is uncomfortable to terror attacks that have killed thousands, where taunting behavior makes many people uncomfortable and contact the authorities.
I can tell you all this...I'm in no postiton to judge anyone.
Will side with Moose and Nick. Some will praise, most will damn.
But neither side "will see the light" no matter what.
I could continue, however, the decorum will prohibit such.
Not really a valid argument. Many people aboard the airplane, including the crew, were upset by this guy, based on specific historical events. You, on the other hand, are a single person upset due to an event in your personal life.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
I think we've just about beaten this to death, there are valid points on both sides of the argument, and as much as I'm not going to change my mind, I don't think I'm going to change anyone else's either.
That said, I'm done with this topic, but I want to say how pleased I've been that we could debate this for almost 2 weeks, and despite all the rhetoric involved, we have remained (for the most part) civil toward one another's views, and haven't resorted to the type of childish behavior you see on some other forums.
Thanks for an interesting debate, folks!
Agreed. Always good to have a nice friendly back and forth with my friends. :)
Beers on Nick!!
Good.
Now thats over could you please change that green bouncy thingy Phil!?
This thread was almost as crappy as Mario's Moon over Maho picture.
Beers on Nick.
End of discussion.
J
Scary.. Last I checked we still live in the United States of America.Quote:
Originally Posted by gothamspotter
Your way past vigiliant, it's more like paranoid.Quote:
Originally Posted by gothamspotter
I am well aware of this fact but it wasn't the captain that had a problem with the shirt at first. It was the people in the gate area.Quote:
Originally Posted by t-bird76
Finally somebody making sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
As for beers maybe if we all put a prybar in Tommy's wallet and put all our strength together maybe we can open it!
Beers on Tommy!
I happen to work for one of those agencies with the three letters and do we look suspiciously at people? Yes, with reports I read all the time that send chills up my spine, you bet. Are some of the procedures we get from DC ridicous? Yep but we still follow them (shaking our heads).
I have to admit up front that I have had PAPD check persons hanging out in parks around the airport. It is not to harass to spotters but to ensure the people there are spotters. A manpad (shoulder mounted missile) is just a tube and a battery. It can be set up in seconds, fired and off the perps go.
We have nothing against the spotters, hey in a former life I would love to sit under the arriving flights. Life will never be the same again. After seeing dozens of friends and co-workers die and attend their funerals gives you incentive to never have that happen again.
The person in question from this article was questioned and asked to change his shirt to ease the concerns of his fellow passengers. Is this really as bad as he is trying to portray? No. He was looking to be a victim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emshighway
Ding ding ding!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :idea: