Re: Fwd: [IP] Gilmore bounced from plane; and Farber censors Gilmore's email
Eric Cordia wrote... "I mean, a 1 inch button, for Christ's sake. They must have had to use a magnifying glass to read the slogan." Actually, that's an interesting point. Let's first of all remember that Gilmore was allowed onto the plane in the first place, so airport security didn't care or notice. And it doesn't seem that onboard Gilmore was causing a ruckus or creating the sense of insecurity. And I'm willing to bet that none of the staff actually felt/believed that the guy was a threat (let's assume they have the right to remove somebody that perceived to be a threat). So clearly this was punitive. No don't get me wrong, I would have thought the guy was a little bit of dick for "spooking the straights", and I would have been tempted (note the word tempted) to punch that button off of him so we didn't have to turn around. But it sounds like a rehash of the mall incident...had he walked onto the flight with a button that said "I support our troops", he wouldn't have been thrown off. Thus everyone has become a kind of thought cop....but what they're enforcing is not the collective perceived reality, but what most people believe the collective perceived reality is supposed to be. There're cracks already though, and the fact that NY Times ran that photo on the front page the other day means a lot, actually... -TD
From: Eric Cordian <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> To: cypherpunks@minder.net Subject: Re: Fwd: [IP] Gilmore bounced from plane; and Farber censors Gilmore's email Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
I felt sorry for the other 300 people on the plane who had their flight delayed for some guy with a small badge on his chest, and a big chip on his shoulder.
The other 300 people on the plane had their flight delayed by the actions of the carrier, not by the actions of Gilmore.
You are falling for the usual mental trap here of viewing authority as some sort of inviolate physical law, and transferring responsibilty onto the victim for "making them do it."
You should watch that in the future.
I mean, a 1 inch button, for Christ's sake. They must have had to use a magnifying glass to read the slogan.
-- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
_________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
On Wednesday 23 July 2003 09:18, Tyler Durden wrote:
But it sounds like a rehash of the mall incident
You don't know what you're talking about. This happened just a few miles from me, so perhaps I've paid closer attention than you have. T-shirt man wasn't merely minding his own business while wearing an offensive shirt. He was stepping in front of people and haranguing them in front of a large anchor store in the mall. After a while he was asked to leave by a store employee, so he took himself to the food court and repeated the procedure. After complaints from several mall patrons, a security guard asked T-shirt man to either knock it off or leave. T-shirt man refused, growing more and more aggressive, and eventually the local cops came along and arrested him. (I may have fudged some details, as I'm working from memory, but I don't think I screwed up anything important.) OK, so far it could be the spontaneous actions of one guy. But, even though the story wasn't reported until the late news that evening, there was a large (hundreds, IIRC) crowd of protesters when the mall opened the next morning. This might not sound like much to someone used to NYC crowds, but by the standards of this area that was a huge crowd. I guess it _could_ have been a spontaneous rising of a populace fed up with jack-booted thug harrassment of dissenting opinion. But the more I hear about it, the more this sounds like a planned operation. -- 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
At 06:42 AM 7/24/2003 -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
On Wednesday 23 July 2003 09:18, Tyler Durden wrote:
But it sounds like a rehash of the mall incident
You don't know what you're talking about. This happened just a few miles from me, so perhaps I've paid closer attention than you have. T-shirt man wasn't merely minding his own business while wearing an offensive shirt. He was stepping in front of people and haranguing them in front of a large anchor store in the mall. After a while he was asked to leave by a store employee, so he took himself to the food court and repeated the procedure. After complaints from several mall patrons, a security guard asked T-shirt man to either knock it off or leave. I live in this area too and this is far different than the one I heard. The description of events that I heard was that he was bothering *no one*, simply walking around wearing a shirt. The mall did make that claim but I haven't heard anyone else say he was bothering anyone. The newspaper story said they mall had one complaint about him, not "many." Also, the subsequent patrons wearing "Give peace a chance" where booted too and they were definitely not bothering anyone. Only when public pressure came to bear did they relent.
T-shirt man refused, growing more and more aggressive, and eventually the local cops came along and arrested him. (I may have fudged some details, as I'm working from memory, but I don't think I screwed up anything important.)
Let's see, you believe you're engaging in protected speech, rent-a-cops come and tell you to stop, and you don't believe you have to. If you're going to lie down if you believe you have a valid argument then that's really weak. I happen to agree with those who said that since he was on private property the property owners had every right to boot him off. I just think you should do a little more fact-checking before you post. Jack
The rights of property owners, especially commercial property, are not as absolute as sometimes argued. Due to the public services provided by governmental authorities, tax perqs not the least, property owners are required to abide a diverse range of laws and regulations to provide assurance that people on the property are safe. These people include the property owner, family members, employees, customers and others who may not be capable of judging what is safe. Similarly, retail property owners are obliged to provide assurances to customers that they are safe as prescribed by zoning, building and health codes. To be sure there is a lucrative industry of professionals who advise property owners how to skirt these requirements -- public relations mongers, lobbyists, lawyers, zoning consultants, architects, engineers, planners, politicians, so-called public interest groups, bribers, liars, cheaters, the mob, whores, pimps, and so on. Most of these are lightly or unregulated, even those ostensibly licensed to protect the public interest are happy to front for those whose only interest is criminal profit. Keep this in mind: whenever someone argues for the right to do what they want on their property they are blowing shit in your face while picking your pocket and placing you and your beloved mongrels in danger through a smart-ass range of distancing, exculpatory mechanisms, not least several of the constitutional amendments which were set up for just that purpose by the original continental landscape thieves and which are forever being updated to keep the our-screw-you-laws-are-fair-laws racket running smoothly. Thanks to two centuries of warping law and culture to bias stolen property owners, no property owner takes full risk these days, but some will have you killed if you question that, that's what the justice and national security mob is paid handsomely to enforce. Department of Homeland Security looks to be the greatest ever privacy and property expropriation since the national security apparatus was set up after WW2, stolen from the public in the name of protecting it, given over to the homesec contractors, mediated by the homesec slicksters. "Homeland" is the false positive, as was "national defense."
I happen to agree with those who said that since he was on private property the property owners had every right to boot him off. I just think you should do a little more fact-checking before you post.
Jack
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Steve Furlong wrote:
I guess it _could_ have been a spontaneous rising of a populace fed up with jack-booted thug harrassment of dissenting opinion. But the more I hear about it, the more this sounds like a planned operation.
In the age of cellphones and email, fast ad-hoc organizations of many people aren't as difficult as they used to be. I believe a good book about this could be Howard Rheingold: Smart Mobs. Especially in the case of already pre-stirred subpopulation, in this case the anti-war part, fast crowding could be initiated by a relatively small cause.
participants (5)
-
Jack Reed -
John Young -
Steve Furlong -
Thomas Shaddack -
Tyler Durden