Fwd: [IP] Gilmore bounced from plane; and Farber censors Gilmore's email
To: dave@farber.net, gnu Subject: "Suspected Terrorist" button gets Gilmore ejected from airplane Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:46:43 -0700 From: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
[For IP.]
Dave, you already know about my opposition to useless airport security crap. I'm suing John Ashcroft, two airlines, and various other agencies over making people show IDs to fly -- an intrusive measure that provides no security. (See http://freetotravel.org). But I would be hard pressed to come up with a security measure more useless and intrusive than turning a plane around because of a political button on someone's lapel.
My sweetheart Annie and I tried to fly to London today (Friday) on British Airways. We started at SFO, showed our passports and got through all the rigamarole, and were seated on the plane while it taxied out toward takeoff. Suddenly a flight steward, Cabin Service Director Khaleel Miyan, loomed in front of me and demanded that I 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 political activist Emi Koyama, says "Suspected Terrorist". Large images of the button and I appear in the cover story of Reason Magazine this month, and the story is entitled "Suspected Terrorist". You can see the button at:
http://eminism.org/store/button-racism.html
(Reason hasn't put the current issue online yet, for some reason.)
The steward returned with Capt. Peter Hughes. The captain requested, and then demanded, that I remove the button (they called it a "badge"). He said that I would endanger the aircraft and commit a federal crime if I did not take it off. I told him that it was a political statement and declined to remove it.
They turned the plane around and brought it back to the gate, delaying 300 passengers on a full flight.
We were met at the jetway by Carol Spear, Station Manager for BA at SFO. She stated that since the captain had told her he was refusing to transport me as a passenger, she had no other course but to take me off the plane. I offered no resistance. I reminded her of the court case that United lost when their captain removed a Middle Eastern man who had done nothing wrong, merely because "he made me uncomfortable". She said that she had no choice but to uphold the captain and that we could sort it out in court later, if necessary. She said that my button was in "poor taste".
Later, after consulting with (unspecified) security people, Carol said that if we wanted to fly on the second and last flight of the day, we would be required to remove the button and put it into our checked luggage (or give it to her). And also, our hand-carried baggage would have to be searched to make sure that we didn't carry any more of these terrorist buttons onto the flight and put them on, endangering the mental states of the passengers and crew.
I said that I understood that she had refused me passage on the first flight because the captain had refused to carry me, but I didn't understand why I was being refused passage on the second one. I suggested that BA might have captains with different opinions about free speech, and that I'd be happy to talk with the second captain to see if he would carry me. She said that the captain was too busy to talk with me, and that speaking broadly, she didn't think BA had any captains who would allow someone on a flight wearing a button that said "Suspected Terrorist". She said that BA has discretion to decline to fly anyone. (And here I had thought they were a common carrier, obliged to carry anyone who'll pay the fare, without discrimination.) She said that passengers and crew are nervous about terrorism and that mentioning it bothers them, and that is grounds to exclude me. I suggested that if they wanted to exclude mentions of terrorists from the airplane, then they should remove all the newspapers from it too.
I asked whether I would be permitted to fly if I wore other buttons, perhaps one saying "Hooray for Tony Blair". She said she thought that would be OK. I said, how about "Terrorism is Evil". She said that I probably wouldn't get on. I started to discuss other possible buttons, like "Oppose Terrorism", trying to figure out what kinds of political speech I would be permitted to express in a BA plane, but she said that we could stand there making hypotheticals all night and she wasn't interested. Ultimately, I was refused passage because I would not censor myself at her command.
After the whole interaction was over, I offered to tell her, just for her own information, what the button means and why I wear it. She was curious. I told her that it refers to all of us, everyone, being suspected of being terrorists, being searched without cause, being queued in lines and pens, forced to take our shoes off, to identify ourselves, to be x-rayed and chemically sniffed, to drink our own breast milk, to submit to indignities. Everyone is a suspected terrorist in today's America, including all the innocent people, and that's wrong. That's what it means. The terrorists have won if we turn our country into an authoritarian theocracy "to defeat terrorism". I suggested that British Airways had demonstrated that 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.
Annie asked why she, Annie, was not allowed to fly. She wasn't wearing or carrying any objectionable buttons. Carol said it's because of her association with me. I couldn't have put it better myself -- guilt by association. I asked whether Annie would have been able to fly if she had checked in separately, and got no answer. (Indeed it was I who pointed out to the crew that Annie and I were traveling together, since we were seated about ten rows apart due to the full flight. I was afraid that they'd take me off the plane without her even knowing.)
Annie later told me that the stewardess who had gone to fetch her said that she thought the button was something that the security people had made me wear to warn the flight crew that I was a suspected terrorist(!). Now that would be really secure.
I spoke with the passengers around me before being removed from the plane, and none of them seemed to have any problem with sitting next to me for 10 hours going to London. None of them had even noticed the button before the crew pointed it out, and none of them objected to it after seeing it. It was just the crew that had problems, as far as I could tell.
John Gilmore
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.
"There is no protection or safety in anticipatory servility." Craig Spencer
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
On Monday 21 July 2003 02:36, John Kozubik wrote:
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.
Look up "common carrier".
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.
I'm generally agreed with you here, but regulated industries are so far from the libertarian ideal that there's little point to applying it to real-life cases such as this. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel "If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" -- Rep. Henry Waxman
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. Not really - there are quite clear rules in most societies against discrimination of various sorts when you offer a public service. If you say to passenger xxx "you can't fly with me because I don't like your haircut/face/tattoo" then odds are good that you will get away with it. If you say to passenger xxx "you can't fly on *this* plane because I belive you are a security risk" and you are the captain, then you are guaranteed to get away with it (no matter how undeserved it is) but may get hell from
John Kozubik wrote: head office later. If you say to *every* black passenger (or jew, or muslim) "you can't fly with my airline" or even "your ticket will cost double because I don't like you" then you will get slapped down, and rightly so. Of course, if you have a private plane and invite a few friends to miami with you (or even the entire bar) except for any blacks, jews or muslims that might be wanting to come along, then that's fine - the plane is your private property and the Political Correctness Police can go play someplace else. Its when you are offering a public service that the rules change. All the above said - if a particular captain finds a 1" badge saying "suspected terrorist" sufficiently convincing that he then suspects you are a terrorist, he is in his rights to throw you off his plane. Certainly the cabin steward has no such right though, and is probably some dickless little jobsworth that gets a kick from being able to order passengers about. That a blanket ban on his travel (and further, that of his wife) was imposed, simply for possession of the badge, is clearly wrong and anti-terrorist-fever gone mad. I also don't understand how a "federal crime" can be committed on a english airplane - I thought the legal fiction was that from boarding the plane to disembarking (and sometimes not even then, if you are transferring between flights without ever legally "landing") you were in the sovereign territory of whatever flag the airline is registered under? Oh, and as to the "murder" bit, IIRC the captain of a ship or plane may legally kill you if he believes this is required for the safety of his vessel and passengers as a whole - I would hate to see the paperwork though unless you were actually standing there with a bomb and a gun at the time :)
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. If any one airline decides to impose a blanket requirement (all passengers must show ID) then that is fine. If all airlines decide to do so independently (or even as a joint response to a situation) then that is fine, but probably could do with a little scrutiny to make sure it really was their idea. However, false ID is easily enough obtained. If the federal government decides to impose (or even "strongly recommend") such a scheme, and further provides a list of "no fly" people (purely on name, so you can't tell if the joe bloggs you have at your desk is a terrorist threat, someone who wrote a purple-ink letter to the president last year, or some other joe bloggs who is really unlucky in his choice of name) then this is a major erosion of liberties, a deeply frightening development, or both.
participants (4)
-
Dave Howe -
John Kozubik -
Steve Furlong -
Steve Schear