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

John Kozubik john at kozubik.com
Sun Jul 20 23:36:27 PDT 2003

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

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 at kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list