On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Steve Schear wrote:
remove a small 1" button pinned to my left lapel. I declined, saying that it was a political statement and that he had no right to censor passengers' political speech. The button, which was created by
Where do these ridiculous ideas come from ? If I own a piece of private property, like an airplane (or an entire airline) for instance, I can impose whatever senseless and arbitrary conditions on your use of it as I please. In reality, I personally would allow his button, and other political speech, etc., but that is not _necessarily_ so. BA refuses to transport him with the button ? BA requires that he submit DNA to fly ? BA requires all passengers to fly nude and recite the hokey-pokey ? All within their rights(*) as the renters of their private property. If you don't like it, don't purchase their service. They have no obligation to serve you, and you have no right to use their service. If their conditions and your needs happen to intersect, then contract them for service - if not, please move along.
They turned the plane around and brought it back to the gate, delaying 300 passengers on a full flight.
Too bad for you, and not something I would do if I ran the airline, but it is their property and they can do whatever they please(*) with it ... and not be acting in bad faith when they do so long as they stay within the bounds of your contract/agreement with them, which I suspect includes no language concerning political speech, etc.
trend brilliantly today. She understood but wasn't sympathetic -- like most of the people whose individual actions are turning the country into a police state.
And what is your alternative ? I note that you are attempting to appropriate the property rights of others (albeit in a small way) through a court decision (ie. guns) under the auspices of your perceived "right" to use their property as you see fit. How do the folks at Reason Magazine feel about that ? I read the article, and I am curious to see reader reaction to it ... most likely most will be distracted by the "drinking your own breast milk" horror stories.
PS: For those who know I don't fly in the US because of the ID demand: I'm willing to show a passport to travel to another country. I'm not willing to show ID -- an "internal passport" -- to fly within my own country.
All fine and good - and I appreciate your efforts at uncovering the secret directives and generally resisting the erosion of liberties, however it bothers me greatly that when the obvious is pointed out - that if the _private airlines_ become unburdened by the ID requirement, they will simply require it themselves - that you consider this unjust as well. Further, you invoke some "right" of yours to impose your will on these private property owners. It is difficult to imagine how "blah blah employee number four Sun Microsystems blah blah" is capable of this kind of cognitive dissonance. (*) Within the bounds of the law. Please don't respond with ridiculous queries: "can BA murder you on the plane?!" "can BA rape you?!" ----- John Kozubik - john@kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com