Fwd: [IP] Gilmore bounced from plane; and Farber censors Gilmore's email

"There is no protection or safety in anticipatory servility." Craig Spencer

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Steve Schear wrote:
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.
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.
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

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 :)

On Monday 21 July 2003 02:36, John Kozubik wrote:
Look up "common carrier".
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
participants (4)
-
Dave Howe
-
John Kozubik
-
Steve Furlong
-
Steve Schear