Security Incident at JFK over T-shirt?

[Derf]

I understand the checks....but so much for not racial profiling....On a side
note...this guy is a jackass for wearing it. He was tempting them plain
and simple but were they right??? Were his rights Violated? Hmmm

Some opinions please...
http://parkerstudio.com/AAW/JFK_story.html

[moose135]

And what would happen if people complained about having a Middle-Eastern looking person on the flight - would they make him take the bus? He did nothing wrong, the shirt wasn't offensive or threatening, and he shouldn't have been made to change it.

[Alex T]

While it wasn't smart of him to wear it, he did nothing wrong and jetblue and the other officials were in the wrong for it.

I mean come on, I am hearing impaired and I could wear a shirt syaing "we wont be silent" menaing deaf, is THAT gonna be a threat to new york? Nah.

Alex

[Nonstop2AUH]

So much for freedom of speech. I've seen these shirts around NYC, including on an elderly couple wearing them on the 1 train last week. Nobody called for their detention, inspection or removal from the subway. The world has many languages. Arabic is a language, indeed there are many US citizens of Arab heritage. As for the message, it has nothing to do with terrorism. It is primarily a show of solidarity with Arab people such as the Iraqis we are supposedly liberating and the Lebanese we are hoping to democratize. What an example to set by banning their language as a 'threat.' This guy should sue JetBlue or whoever was in charge of the situation for violating his First Amendment rights. I'm sure if he had a Hebrew shirt that said "Stand with Israel" they' d have given him an extra bag of blue chips.

[Tom_Turner]

I'm sure if he had a Hebrew shirt that said "Stand with Israel" they' d have given him an extra bag of blue chips.

Lets touch on this point then.

Why do you suppose the difference?

[RDU-JFK]

If passengers felt uncomfortable, then JetBlue has a right to approach the man. Also, this guy was asking for this. Racial profiling exists, and is necessary because of what these animal terrorists have been done. This guy wears a shirt with Arabic written on it saying "we shall be heard" or whatever and doesn't expect anyone to be wary? Give me a break! If you want to make a statement, don't do it at an airport or in a situation where middle eastern people are under tight scruting as is.

This guy just wants attention. Well done, Jetblue and TSA.


Also, "we shall not be silent" can imply that this group might be planning some sort of retaliation, whereas Support Israel does not imply or suggest any action. Two entirely different statements.

[T-Bird76]

I'm sorry but I don't think the TSA and jetBlue in this case were in the wrong. The fact of the matter is every attempt to bring down an airliner has been by Muslims. If I knew what the shirt meant I think I'd feel a bit uncomfortable with him on board. He does fit the profile of most Middle Eastern men who have attempted or have taken down airliners. Your rights are your rights just like free speech but I'm not going to joke around in an airport about a bomb just like this guy should have been smart enough to where something more intelligent. He brought the attention onto himself on his own, he got what he deserved.

[Mellyrose]

I agree that while this might "violate freedom of speech," this was a stupid move on his part. Him doing this seems like an immature way of exhibiting his rights and being a smart ass, even. I hate it when people do things just because they CAN, even (or especially) if it's controversial.

Think about it this way too. While the 2nd amendment is your right to bear arms, you can NOT do that in an airport/on a plane. Not that the t-shirt was an immediate threat as a gun would be, but it does indicate hostility or controversy...something that travelers do not want on their planes nowadays. He obviously was either not using common sense or was just very self righteous (I suspect the latter).

[moose135]

Your rights are your rights just like free speech but I'm not going to joke around in an airport about a bomb just like this guy should have been smart enough to where something more intelligent. He brought the attention onto himself on his own, he got what he deserved.

There are some legitimate cases where public safety overrides free speech - no, you don't yell "Movie" in a crowded firehouse, but what this guy did posed no threat to anyone. He wasn't joking about a bomb or other threats to the flight. He had been through screening, so he shouldn't have had any weapons in his possession, the only problem was some of the sheep who believe the government fear-mongering tactics reacted in a closed-minded way to his shirt.

This keeps up, and pretty soon they will tell us we can't take pictures of airplanes because someone is afraid we may be up to no good. Oh wait...

[Derf]

I agree that while this might "violate freedom of speech," this was a stupid move on his part. Him doing this seems like an immature way of exhibiting his rights and being a smart ass, even. I hate it when people do things just because they CAN, even (or especially) if it's controversial.......

While I agree with you and this statement 100%, Now instead of it being an shirt written in Arabic....replace this incident with aviation photographers taking pictures of airplanes from the airport fence.....This is lots of people feel when the see us taking pictures by airports. Perception and law are two different things. But people do think the same about us....

Not sure where that came from but....hmmmm

[hiss srq]

There is sooooo much crap put out by our ever so "informative" media in America that not even the cops know what the rules etc........ The guy was probably one of those people who has to go out and push the limits of tolerence as far as people go too. I understand both sides of the spectrum. I was watching the seige on HBO before i went to JFK around 3 am or so and kind of thinking about how we have became a watered down version of the police state portrayed in that movie sometimes.

[Derf]

Removed

[T-Bird76]

I agree that while this might "violate freedom of speech," this was a stupid move on his part. Him doing this seems like an immature way of exhibiting his rights and being a smart ass, even. I hate it when people do things just because they CAN, even (or especially) if it's controversial.......

While I agree with you and this statement 100%, Now instead of it being an shirt written in Arabic....replace this incident with aviation photographers taking pictures of airplanes from the airport fence.....This is lots of people feel when the see us taking pictures by airports. Perception and law are two different things. But people do think the same about us....

Not sure where that came from but....hmmmm

Fred you know first hand we get stopped and booted out of places while spotting. However the difference here is he's Muslim wearing a T-shirt that draws attention to himself. Did he think no one was going to stop him? Lets be real here!

[Derf]

Fred you know first hand we get stopped and booted out of places while spotting. However the difference here is he's Muslim wearing a T-shirt that draws attention to himself. Did he think no one was going to stop him? Lets be real here!

Tom, I am not saying that he is not a Jaggoff, I am saying that they did not follow the LAW by making him change it

So a Muslim picks up a camera at an airport fence......

I understand where you are coming from Tom...that is the problem.... there really is no right and wrong as far as most people think. But they did Not follow the LAW and that should be plain WRONG. If police officers say to me that he does not like....I snap in and say....What law am I breaking?

[Mellyrose]

I agree that while this might "violate freedom of speech," this was a stupid move on his part. Him doing this seems like an immature way of exhibiting his rights and being a smart ass, even. I hate it when people do things just because they CAN, even (or especially) if it's controversial.......

While I agree with you and this statement 100%, Now instead of it being an shirt written in Arabic....replace this incident with aviation photographers taking pictures of airplanes from the airport fence.....This is lots of people feel when the see us taking pictures by airports. Perception and law are two different things. But people do think the same about us....

Not sure where that came from but....hmmmm

I don't think this is comparable. We usually aren't on airport property when taking photos, and when we are and are asked to leave, we oblige. Also, the people who are on the plane can't see us and therefore we aren't making THEM uncomfortable. It's obvious that when people call the cops on a very public, usually large group of photographers, they are just over-dramatic and like to start trouble. Most of us look as if we couldn't hurt a fly...and we stand around in a group laughing and even interacting with passers-by...we are not the "usual suspects."

Point remains, no matter what side of this argument you are on, I think it's safe to say that what this guy did was ignorant and provocative.

[MORS-AB-ALTO]

First off we have to realize that Mr. Jarrar's wearing the shirt does not show support of any terrorist organization. Secondly after reading his Blog his main focus is promoting peace in the Middle East and has voiced his opposton to both the war in Iraq and the former Hussein regime. He is very active in promoting his leftist political beliefs with lots of travel, television appearances and his Blog. He appears to be a very genuine person.

There are 2 main questions at hand.

First off should he have worn the shirt to the airport considering the current situation? Common sense would say yes, but this guy craves all the intention he can get. I'm sure that the self rightious part of him took over and whether it was intentional on his part or not it did promote a cause he believes in. Personally I believe he was thinking all about himself by wearing it and not about anyone on that flight. Wear it on the street, when you go to K-mart, on the beach, at the gym or wherever, but don't be surprised when your questioned at a security senstitive locations.

Secondly were his civil rights violated? I say they were only after they made him change his shirt. I compliment a good job by the TSA and security in identifying him and acting on the so called threat. He went through the secondary security checkpoint, I'm sure any baggage he checked was pulled for further inspection as well. His ID was checked about a dozen times and I'm sure they searched his name and likeness on NCIC and other watch list databases. At that point if the threat was nullified and he was cleared to fly so who cares what shirt he had one. I don't even have a problem with them relocating him on the plane which we all know was BS with the infant.

Although not originating from a US jurisdiction one has to ask how can dynanite be flown in a luggae hold , but people me made to change so called threatening T-shirts? I'm gonna have to get a NYC Avaition "Aviation Photography Is Not a Crime" shirts and try it out myself.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Mellyrose]

I'm gonna have to get a NYC Avaition "Aviation Photography Is Not a Crime" shirts and try it out myself.

You know I was going to mention that t-shirt when writing about how much of a "non-threat" spotters are, but I realized that it's not an apples to apples comparison. It's not that provocative at all really...it's just slightly controversial but I think that more than that, it's informative...and it makes a statement.

Phil has had people come up to him while wearing that shirt and asked "who ever said it was?" referring to the statement.

If someone who was taking photos of planes, or had a camera near an airport had ever been convicted of terrorism directly related to photography, then yes...the shirt would be provocative. Since that isn't the case, I don't think it is at all.

[Nonstop2AUH]

For those of you who think that "making other passengers uncomfortable" is more important than this guy's right to free expression, I ask the following. If you're on the subway and a group of young African-Americans enter the car wearing, say, NWA t-shirts (the rap group, not the bankrupt airline of the same name), would you advocate their removal or detention as well? Would you say that they were "asking for trouble" by wearing such shirts, or by being a group of black guys on the subway? There are alot of things that make people uncomfortable, but that is not in itself a detainable offense unless some law has been broken. In this case, no law was broken.

If this gentlemen cleared a TSA security check and is not on a no-fly list, the people who were asking for trouble in this case were the ignorant and likely racist officials who felt like they had to make a big thing over a t-shirt. I used to work in the Middle East in a country that is extremely friendly to the United States and has been heralded by the Bush administration as an ally in the war on terror. I shudder to think if I wore a t-shirt with the name or logo of my former employer, or for that matter, a t-shirt that says "Dubai Hilton" or something on it in Arabic, that it would make me some sort of suspect.

A certain amount of reason needs to prevail in these situations. The Arabic language has not been made illegal in this country, not in airports or anywhere else. In fact, the law says that this country has no official language at all. So unless you are going to take up this broader issue, and if there was no other reason to detain this guy besides his t-shirt, it really is a bit egregious.

[moose135]

There is sooooo much crap put out by our ever so "informative" media in America that not even the cops know what the rules etc........

What did I tell you about media-bashing? :)

If the cops are getting their knowledge of the laws from watching the media, or anywhere but an official source, we're all in big trouble.

[Mateo]

I think we're overlooking the main point here, which is that he DID NOTHING WRONG, and for him to be detained for engaging in Constitutionally-protected free speech is a violation of his rights. It doesn't matter if he was being provocative, it doesn't matter if it displayed a lack of common sense, it doesn't matter what his political beliefs are - he did nothing wrong.

[Derf]

I think we're overlooking the main point here.....
Actually the real main point here I was going for was not this issue but is how we as a group can have such a difference of opinion where we all stand arm in arm about aviation photography.... I was curious how close our views on a very similar matter that hits close to home....ie, getting picked on by the man when there was no real legal reason.

I was hoping to hear Nick's views....while he does not give the cute fuzzy answers....but is usually tack sharp with his logic. Tom Turner and Phil. There were others and many that did answer. Thank you for all your answers....there are no wrong answers, just difference of opinions.

[K9DEP]

This guy did nothing wrong at all. I know most of you wear shirts with airline logo's imagine if he got that shirt from a duty free shop in the U.A.E and it was the logo for Gulf Air, or Emirates without the English translation. I don't think you should be calling the guy a "Smart-ass" because he wore that shirt, I bet young kids arriving here at JFK on PIA or Emirates or Kuwait have clothing with Arabic script on it and nothing happens to them.Why? Because those flights don't have paranoid Americans on them. Also Arabic script is very popular because of it's look and many people like the style and the design.

[RDU-JFK]

K9, the shirt was translated and said "we won't be silent". I'm sorry, but this sounds a bit threatening. Not only does it imply some sort of political statement but it implies that action might take place on this flight. It's an entirely different story if the shirt were just in Arabic. The translation is meant to intimidate, and the TSA did nothing wrong.

[Mellyrose]

I don't think you should be calling the guy a "Smart-ass" because he wore that shirt, I bet young kids arriving here at JFK on PIA or Emirates or Kuwait have clothing with Arabic script on it and nothing happens to them.

Yes, but he is NOT a young kid...he is a perfectly aware adult and what he did was provocative. There's no way that anyone with common sense would make the move of wearing that shirt at an NYC airport without the motive to get attention. He was trying to prove a point and stir things up...he obviously accomplished that. It was just plain ignorant and self righteous.

The airport is NOT a place to try and test limits or make statements like that.

[T-Bird76]

I have to agree with Mel on this, the airport is no place to voice your opinion on world politics, especially ones as strong as his. You're rights are you're rights but there's a time and place that you exercise good judgment and this was not the place.

I believe something similar came up last year at the University of Colorado where a prof was making hate filled remarks about 9/11 and he was American. The college fired him and he cried foul that his rights were violated. Yes he was protected under the right of free speech but again someone in his position educating tomorrow's youth needs to have some common sense just like this guy does.

He'll probably end up suing jetBlue and winning. I hope he ends up on some watch list under auspicious of "just plain stupid."

[K9DEP]

K9, the shirt was translated and said "we won't be silent". I'm sorry, but this sounds a bit threatening. Not only does it imply some sort of political statement but it implies that action might take place on this flight. It's an entirely different story if the shirt were just in Arabic. The translation is meant to intimidate, and the TSA did nothing wrong.

I know what your saying but, It seems to me (at least the way I understood the story) that the guy wearing the shirt is the same person who translated it. The other B6 passengers were frightened of the font. I don't think many of the people at the terminal could translate that shirt. Maybe this guy isn't telling the whole story. Someone had to have asked him what it meant and from there I could see people calling the TSA and Police. But your right nowadays the airport is the last place to express political views. But what won't he be silent about?

[Nonstop2AUH]

On October 26 the first Etihad flight will be arriving at JFK. It will undoubtedly contain Arabs and people with things written in Arabic and Arabic writing on the side of the aircraft, as do the aircraft from Emirates, Saudi, Egyptair, Kuwait, etc. that arrive on a daily or near-daily basis. Do those of you who think Arabic is 'threatening' intend to call the SWAT team? I could understand this mentality in the less ethnically diverse parts of America where the non-white and non-christian are treated with suspicion, but this is New York City, have you not been to Astoria, Brooklyn, and other parts of the city where there is plenty of signage in Arabic? Some of you are no different than those in the '50s and '60s that thought every black person who spoke out for civil rights was a potential threat and justified it with the excuse that "blacks commit alot of crime" and they are 'all the same.' And if you somehow think this is different, it isn't. The message on the shirt refers specifically to the fact that the opinions of Arab-Americans have largely been systematically disregarded in recent years by the government and the media. If they are to be stripped of their rights to have an opinion, at the airport or anywhere else, then it needs to be done through legislation, not by individual TSA agents or JetBlue hourly employees. For those of you who think it's about 9/11 and 'not taking any chances,' well, some people did die in an airliner this weekend, and it had nothing to do with Arabs or t-shirts.

[Mellyrose]

I know what your saying but, It seems to me (at least the way I understood the story) that the guy wearing the shirt is the same person who translated it. The other B6 passengers were frightened of the font. I don't think many of the people at the terminal could translate that shirt.

Read the story again then....

I looked at my t-shirt: I was wearing my shirt which states in both Arabic and English "we will not be silent".

[Ari707]

btw do you think a real terrorist would be that obvious or try to hide it a bit by wearing a Nike t-shirt....

[Mellyrose]

I think that's irrelevant. I never said I thought he was a terrorist. I just think what he did was uncalled for. It was thoughtless and controversial and he knew what he was doing.

[T-Bird76]

btw do you think a real terrorist would be that obvious or try to hide it a bit by wearing a Nike t-shirt....

As obvious as Richard Reid??? That jackass tried blow up his shoe in the middle of the cabin. Some of these guys aren't the brightest bulbs on the porch.

[K9DEP]

I know what your saying but, It seems to me (at least the way I understood the story) that the guy wearing the shirt is the same person who translated it. The other B6 passengers were frightened of the font. I don't think many of the people at the terminal could translate that shirt.

Read the story again then....

I looked at my t-shirt: I was wearing my shirt which states in both Arabic and English "we will not be silent".

Thanks I must have overlooked that, but still no reason for people to get overworked about it.

[markg]

While I agree with you and this statement 100%, Now instead of it being an shirt written in Arabic....replace this incident with aviation photographers taking pictures of airplanes from the airport fence.....This is lots of people feel when the see us taking pictures by airports. Perception and law are two different things. But people do think the same about us....

Not sure where that came from but....hmmmm

Has anyone had an encounter yet with the cops or rent-a-cops while wearing the "airline photography is not a crime" shirts?

[Mellyrose]

No....like I mentioned before, Phil doesn't wear that shirt while spotting to avoid the repercussions of the provocative nature of the shirt (the moral of my side of the debate). As far as I know, no one else has worn it out either.

[PhilDernerJr]

Keep in mind that the older version of the shirt, not made by NYCA, has been around for some time. Not to say it hasn't, but I don't believe it has caused any drama in the past, nor has the current ones.

[FlyingColors]

(wish none of this EVER happened..It just makes me sad)

Anyhow..my 2 cents.


Silence is the opposite of speech.

To me that sounds like he has a voice, and perhaps something to say.
Now if anyone wants to listen to it may be a different story all together, outside the scope of this question.

If the shirt said "watch what I'm going to do" then that may be a prelude to possible physical action. I'm sure an attorney could dissect that in more ways then a Susi's chef with a puffer fish.

I can gather the man has been persecuted. Reminds me of a nice group of photographers. So misunderstood.

[PhilDernerJr]

I think he went in there with the intent to antagonize. That's socially destructive.

[FlyingColors]

Unfortunately we only have one side of the story.

And who knows how its been manipulated, altered and rearranged, for whatever benefit. Any of us could fill that one in with a different answer.

What we don't have here is an actual witness from the incident.

So who really knows the precise intent, actions and attitude that gives purpose to ones quest.

[moose135]

I think he went in there with the intent to antagonize. That's socially destructive.

I thought he went there with the intent to fly to California, but maybe I'm misreading the opening line of the story:

I went to JFK in the morning to catch my Jet Blue plane to California.

[Mellyrose]

I'm sure he had many other t-shirts that he could've chosen from to wear. He put thought into wearing that one to the airport, and therefore antagonistic and socially destructive.

[FlyingColors]

I think he went in there with the intent to antagonize. That's socially destructive.

I thought he went there with the intent to fly to California, but maybe I'm misreading the opening line of the story:

I went to JFK in the morning to catch my Jet Blue plane to California.

I'm with Moose on this one.

[FlyingColors]

I'm sure he had many other t-shirts that he could've chosen from to wear. He put thought into wearing that one to the airport, and therefore antagonistic and socially destructive.

Lets take this very same atmosphere and slap on yet another popular misconception, that so happens to fit very well:

"The photographer was taking pictures of airplanes and that's socially destructive and therefore was aiding terrorism. He could've chose to take good hearted pictures of flowers yet became an instrument of death for 9/11"

[PhilDernerJr]

Mike, I think you're missing the big difference here.

My perosnal belief, my gut feeling, my opinion, is that this guy put that shirt on with the intent to cause trouble. I feel he knew when he put that on in the morning that he'd get questioned. He got all the publicity that he wanted, and he was lucky enough to still make his flight.

When we go spotting, we go with the intention of enjoying our hobby, not with the intention of causing trouble.

Legal or not, constitutional or not, what he did was in poor taste and antagonistic. Him going through second screening and being asked questions does not violate his constitutional rights, and although free speech is a constitutional, he does not have a right to express himself on an airline, as it's not public property.

So I ask...what is the problem? I fail to see why this is such a big issue.

[Mellyrose]

Also, from what I read in the newspapers, he was an admitted ACTIVIST. There's no way he didn't put thought into wearing that to the airport, to "prove his rights."

[PhilDernerJr]

This guy did nothing wrong at all.

Good. Neither did the authories.

[mirrodie]

Also, from what I read in the newspapers, he was an admitted ACTIVIST. There's no way he didn't put thought into wearing that to the airport, to "prove his rights."


I've been quiet about it and gathering facts and in light of the fact that he's an activist, I have to side with Phil and Mel.

[FlyingColors]

Both points duly noted.

Its easy to see any of us, especially myself, can be headstrong. We will love or hate as our emotions fuel that passion. And by doing so certain elements can be overlooked, ignored or exaggerated.

That's one of those great things we can do under the Constitution, ya know, that silly paper someday is going to wipe there heiney with and flush it away.

Love, Peace and Airplane grease!

[PhilDernerJr]

I love you Mike! :)

[FlyingColors]

I love you Mike! :)

I'ts all good!

[Tom_Turner]

I think those flights to the USA will all be fine Nonstop... however, its funny you bring this up.."Western" carriers to the Middle East have to be very careful not to offend muslim sensibilities...

http://www.nycaviation.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1494

showing/having crusifixes or bibles etc... quite understandable actually in a country that has religious police push female school children back into a burning building because their faces are not covered.

No need either to get into all this racial stuff.. I believe the abolitionist movement was born in the USA (and UK).. certainly not much slavery nowadays - apart from places like the Sudan...anyway..

Some citizens in the US are certainly prejudiced of course, and many are far too foolishly alarmed by people of middle eastern appearance -although much of that it has to be stated is derived by continued plots and acts of violence by islamists throughout the US and indeed worldwide.. - plenty of it well after "911".. and plenty of it before.... Neither muslims nor Americans have an exclusive on gaining a poor reputation.

I have read the young man's blogs/website btw and it certainly appears he is a "make a difference" peacenik moreso than an in-your-face" activist, and I do agree his rights were violated by having to change his shirt in this instance, but in the greater scheme of things, not the end of the world...(for him, the US, civil rights in general, muslims in the USA, jetBlue, TSA etc..)

Tom


On October 26 the first Etihad flight will be arriving at JFK. It will undoubtedly contain Arabs and people with things written in Arabic and Arabic writing on the side of the aircraft, as do the aircraft from Emirates, Saudi, Egyptair, Kuwait, etc. that arrive on a daily or near-daily basis. Do those of you who think Arabic is 'threatening' intend to call the SWAT team? I could understand this mentality in the less ethnically diverse parts of America where the non-white and non-christian are treated with suspicion, but this is New York City, have you not been to Astoria, Brooklyn, and other parts of the city where there is plenty of signage in Arabic? Some of you are no different than those in the '50s and '60s that thought every black person who spoke out for civil rights was a potential threat and justified it with the excuse that "blacks commit alot of crime" and they are 'all the same.' And if you somehow think this is different, it isn't. The message on the shirt refers specifically to the fact that the opinions of Arab-Americans have largely been systematically disregarded in recent years by the government and the media. If they are to be stripped of their rights to have an opinion, at the airport or anywhere else, then it needs to be done through legislation, not by individual TSA agents or JetBlue hourly employees. For those of you who think it's about 9/11 and 'not taking any chances,' well, some people did die in an airliner this weekend, and it had nothing to do with Arabs or t-shirts.

[emshighway]

What you read in news articles and this persons blog is a one sided story. This guy was looking for the attention. JetBlue, the Port and TSA received numerous complaints from passengers even before he reached the checkpoint. He was made a selectee by JetBlue. He went through the checkpoint and the complaints continued.

A JetBlue Rep, Port Officer and TSA Inspector went to speak to the person in response to these complaints. In my opinion the person was treated very well. He was advised of the problem and given solutions so he could still fly and the other passengers would feel comfortable. JetBlue could have just refused to allow him to fly, end of story. The persons involved tried to explain the problem using and analogy which was conveniently used against them in the blog and jumped upon by the news.

This person went to the airport with full knowledge he would cause a stir. He would have loved it if he was handcuffed and dragged away but instead he was treated with respect but he still needed to complain.

JetBlue, PAPD and the TSA needed to respond to the complaints. If they hadn't they would have been delinquent in their duty. They balanced the rights of this person with the rights of the rest of the passengers.

[PhilDernerJr]

I've been holding back a bit of my thoughts so that I could share it in this week's editorial.

http://nycaviation.com/editorials#derner090306

[emshighway]

Golf Clap to Phil :D

[NIKV69]

I read Phil's editorial and I found it a little disturbing. You have to preface this by remembering how Phil reacted when he saw "somebody that appeared middle eastern" videotaping from a bridge which prompted him to call 911. I felt this to be an overreation, I also fail to see how a shirt thay says "we will not be silent" would lead you to believe that he was about to initiate some sort of action, whether written is Arabic or not. I don't think that is the case at all. Freedom of speech can not have consessions. I don't see why someone had to cover up their shirt to baord a plane that said something like that. He went through screening and had no weapons so let the damn guy fly. So who cares if his shirt made some pax nervousor drew suspicion? Doesn't our spotting make some people nervous and some suspicious? What does that mean? We have to stop? No. We have to stop this paranoia already. It's getting worse.

[T-Bird76]

I read Phil's editorial and I found it a little disturbing. You have to preface this by remembering how Phil reacted when he saw "somebody that appeared middle eastern" videotaping from a bridge which prompted him to call 911. I felt this to be an overreation, I also fail to see how a shirt thay says "we will not be silent" would lead you to believe that he was about to initiate some sort of action, whether written is Arabic or not. I don't think that is the case at all. Freedom of speech can not have consessions. I don't see why someone had to cover up their shirt to baord a plane that said something like that. He went through screening and had no weapons so let the damn guy fly. So who cares if his shirt made some pax nervousor drew suspicion? Doesn't our spotting make some people nervous and some suspicious? What does that mean? We have to stop? No. We have to stop this paranoia already. It's getting worse.

Nick many times we have to stop spotting and move on; remember your encounter a few weeks ago? The police made you move on. This is a case of clear social responsibility, which this gentleman didn't display any of. An airport is no place to display your political beliefs. Also just because you passed security doesn't mean you can't be screened or questioned again and asked to remove certain things from your possession.

People have been asked to change their shirts before getting on planes for wearing T-shirts that say F**K you. I know this may come as a shock to some but there still is some etiquette when it comes to traveling. You are locked in enclosed space with people it’s simply respectful to dress tastefully and act in a respectful manner. His T-shirt sent a disturbing message to the passengers. jetBlue and the TSA did the right thing in this case.

[Mellyrose]

He went through screening and had no weapons so let the damn guy fly. So who cares if his shirt made some pax nervousor drew suspicion?

They did let him fly. They could've held him as long as they wanted and he would've missed his flight or worse, but all they did was make him cover up his shirt.

"Who cares if his shirt made some passengers nervous?" Are you kidding? An airport/airplane is not exactly the most appropriate place to take the "get a grip" attitude with people. If something draws suspicion, there's usually a valid reason. Better to be safe than sorry, in my opinion.

Let alone the points I've already beat to death about how this guy was obviously desperate to create controversy.

[NIKV69]

An airport is no place to display your political beliefs.

So freedom of speech stops when you enter an airport?


People have been asked to change their shirts before getting on planes for wearing T-shirts that say F**K you

This has nothing to do with this discussion, totally different situation.


His T-shirt sent a disturbing message to the passengers


Say's who? Just because some people find it to be doesn't make it so. If you are going to profile you have to still keep somewhat of an open mind.


If something draws suspicion, there's usually a valid reason

No Melanie, that is not the case, this "better safe than sorry" attitude has gotten to the point where people rights are being trampled. Big time.



Let alone the points I've already beat to death about how this guy was obviously desperate to create controversy.


Your points don't show that at all, this guy just wanted to fly home, not create anything.

[PhilDernerJr]

Correct, Nick, you do not have the full flexibility of your rights beyond security checkpoints at the airport.

His rights were not trampled. Being detained against your will with no charge and not getting your phone call is having your rights being trampled. Not a discussion and the changing of a t-shirt.

[NIKV69]

His rights were not trampled. Being detained against your will with no charge and not getting your phone call is having your rights being trampled

Your right, but making him change or cover up his shirt was trampling his rights. Clearly.

[hiss srq]

I read Phil's editorial and I found it a little disturbing. You have to preface this by remembering how Phil reacted when he saw "somebody that appeared middle eastern" videotaping from a bridge which prompted him to call 911. I felt this to be an overreation, I also fail to see how a shirt thay says "we will not be silent" would lead you to believe that he was about to initiate some sort of action, whether written is Arabic or not. I don't think that is the case at all. Freedom of speech can not have consessions. I don't see why someone had to cover up their shirt to baord a plane that said something like that. He went through screening and had no weapons so let the damn guy fly. So who cares if his shirt made some pax nervousor drew suspicion? Doesn't our spotting make some people nervous and some suspicious? What does that mean? We have to stop? No. We have to stop this paranoia already. It's getting worse.

He may not have had a weapon upon clearing security but I can tell you that to aquire one once inside the sterile area is not a challenge if you have a ramp rat on the ramp. There are many airports including most major ones where the rampers do not have to clear TSA to get out the the sterile area and who is to say that they did not plant somthing but wither way I think this guy was an idiot and what he got he got I do not feel bad for him nor do I care about his shirt though. He knew it was going to create issues. That is like me dressing up as an Arab Sheik and going to work. Not good common sense, would it be illegal? No certainly not but would it be smart? No.

[PhilDernerJr]

His rights were not trampled. Being detained against your will with no charge and not getting your phone call is having your rights being trampled

Your right, but making him change or cover up his shirt was trampling his rights. Clearly.

I think "trampling" is a bit much. Maybe a tiny sacrifice. Maybe. But it's a t-shirt.

This guy made a big deal out of nothing because he wanted more hits on his anti-war website, bottom line.

[Mellyrose]

So freedom of speech stops when you enter an airport?

Not entirely, but yes...to a degree - just like your right to bear arms stops as soon as you enter an airport or any other sensitive area. Certain behavior is just not appropriate for certain scenarios.



Let alone the points I've already beat to death about how this guy was obviously desperate to create controversy.



Your points don't show that at all, this guy just wanted to fly home, not create anything.

Well Nick, you are entitled to your opinion. I wasn't implying that my points proved anything...they're just my opinions - like yours.

I think that if you read a bit more into this, and directly from his website, you'll see that he IS an activist and I find it very hard to believe that a grown adult with half a brain wouldn't realize what they are doing by wearing that shirt to the airport.

[Matt Molnar]

So freedom of speech stops when you enter an airport?

Simply, yes. For example, you can't say "bomb" in an airport. Sure, what his shirt actually said was not threatening. But as every single attack on American civilian aircraft has been perpetrated by men around the same age and communicating in the same language as was on this guy's shirt, the passengers' reaction of fear is totally reasonable. jetBlue is in business to get passengers from point A to point B comfortably, not to make them fly in frightening conditions.

The free speech comparison to photographers is moot. Photographers arouse fear, but the fear is that they are involved in plotting and planning, not that they are imminently launching an attack while standing at the airport with their cameras. The fear aroused by a guy actually on an aircraft about to climb 8 miles into the air is much more serious, as people begin questioning whether they are going to die, what it's going to feel like to get blown up, how their families are going to cope without them, and whether or not they did enough with their lives. Not pleasant stuff to think about for even a minute, nevermind a five hour flight.

[NIKV69]

But as every single attack on American civilian aircraft has been perpetrated by men around the same age and communicating in the same language as was on this guy's shirt

Wow, you could profile just a bit more? Very scary to see we are bahaving in this manner.


The free speech comparison to photographers is moot. Photographers arouse fear, but the fear is that they are involved in plotting and planning, not that they are imminently launching an attack while standing at the airport with their cameras

Where do you get your information? Do you poll every person that gets nervous or feels threatened when they see us at the airport? You guys really have to stop trying to make these generalaztions fact, because they are far from it. Just because you perceive a certain situation as dangerous or threatening doesn't make it so, and it just goes a long way to prove that the terrorists are winning by instilling fear in our minds when see someone doing something perfectly within their rights at an airport. To have a knee jerk reaction every time we see someone of middle eastern descent that appears to be doing something suspicious is really sad. If you have this suspicion by all means screen them twice but once you find they are not a threat or have no weapons let them go on their way. We have a FedEx pilot who is a member here and I tell him this stuff with our encounters with PA and such and he gets sick.he likens it to Nazi Germany where we will all have to show our papers in public when someone in law enforcement feels it necessary or thinks we look suspicious. It's lunacy.

[Mellyrose]

Nick, it's not inappropriate to "profile" as Gotham did if it's FACTUAL. It's not as if he's being racist or irrational.

Seems as if you're just hiding from the truth if you feel as though all of this is an over-reaction.

It's not a knee-jerk reaction if the TSA or the general public is practicing caution based on recent events.

[Matt Molnar]

Wow, you could profile just a bit more? Very scary to see we are bahaving in this manner.

When white haired grandmas from Topeka start bombing planes then I'll stop profiling.


Where do you get your information? Do you poll every person that gets nervous or feels threatened when they see us at the airport?

I speak from a somewhat intelligent person's point of view. Anyone with common sense will not see a camera as an immediate threat to their lives.


Just because you perceive a certain situation as dangerous or threatening doesn't make it so...

It doesn't make it so, but it does make it uncomfortable. The only way to prevent someone willing to die is to keep an eye out for suspicious characters.


and it just goes a long way to prove that the terrorists are winning by instilling fear in our minds when see someone doing something perfectly within their rights at an airport.

Us being vigilant does not mean they're winning.


To have a knee jerk reaction every time we see someone of middle eastern descent that appears to be doing something suspicious is really sad.

I can think of far worse "knee-jerk" reactions than banning the guy from the plane.


If you have this suspicion by all means screen them twice but once you find they are not a threat or have no weapons let them go on their way.

Airlines can deny people boarding for many reasons. If they thought the comfort of their passengers was an issue, they were within their rights to do so with this guy.


We have a FedEx pilot who is a member here and I tell him this stuff with our encounters with PA and such and he gets sick. he likens it to Nazi Germany where we will all have to show our papers in public when someone in law enforcement feels it necessary or thinks we look suspicious. It's lunacy.

To my knowledge, while some people have been harassed, and even detained, no one has ever been arrested for photographing planes from public property.

[T-Bird76]

His rights were not trampled. Being detained against your will with no charge and not getting your phone call is having your rights being trampled

Your right, but making him change or cover up his shirt was trampling his rights. Clearly.

Nick that couldn't be farther from the truth. It is not a right to fly, it is a privilege and that privilege can be taken away at the discursion of the flight crew. If they felt for whatever reason they didn't want him to fly they can stop him from flying and there's nothing he can do about it. The Capts. decision supersedes his rights, that is the law.

[moose135]

I can think of far worse "knee-jerk" reactions than banning the guy from the plane.

And were does it end? I'm uncomfortable with a young African-American man on board because I was mugged by one once, so he needs to get off the airplane?


Airlines can deny people boarding for many reasons. If they thought the comfort of their passengers was an issue, they were within their rights to do so with this guy.

I think those reasons need to be spelled out in their Contract of Carriage (which, conveniently, isn't available on JetBlue's website) If they deny boarding for some arbritrary reason, they can be in trouble.

[PhilDernerJr]

And were does it end? I'm uncomfortable with a young African-American man on board because I was mugged by one once, so he needs to get off the airplane?

I hear this reference in complaints a lot, as though people are expecting everything to be perfect. Laws are all made in a way so that they can be interpreted for case-by-case situations, and this is no different.

You can't compare a mugging where one person is uncomfortable to terror attacks that have killed thousands, where taunting behavior makes many people uncomfortable and contact the authorities.

[FlyingColors]

I can tell you all this...I'm in no postiton to judge anyone.

Will side with Moose and Nick. Some will praise, most will damn.

But neither side "will see the light" no matter what.

I could continue, however, the decorum will prohibit such.

[Matt Molnar]

And were does it end? I'm uncomfortable with a young African-American man on board because I was mugged by one once, so he needs to get off the airplane?

Not really a valid argument. Many people aboard the airplane, including the crew, were upset by this guy, based on specific historical events. You, on the other hand, are a single person upset due to an event in your personal life.

[moose135]

I think we've just about beaten this to death, there are valid points on both sides of the argument, and as much as I'm not going to change my mind, I don't think I'm going to change anyone else's either.

That said, I'm done with this topic, but I want to say how pleased I've been that we could debate this for almost 2 weeks, and despite all the rhetoric involved, we have remained (for the most part) civil toward one another's views, and haven't resorted to the type of childish behavior you see on some other forums.

Thanks for an interesting debate, folks!

[PhilDernerJr]

Agreed. Always good to have a nice friendly back and forth with my friends. :)

Beers on Nick!!

[FlyingColors]

Good.

Now thats over could you please change that green bouncy thingy Phil!?

[mirrodie]

This thread was almost as crappy as Mario's Moon over Maho picture.
Beers on Nick.

End of discussion.

J

[NIKV69]

When white haired grandmas from Topeka start bombing planes then I'll stop profiling.



Scary.. Last I checked we still live in the United States of America.


Us being vigilant does not mean they're winning.

Your way past vigiliant, it's more like paranoid.



The Capts. decision supersedes his rights, that is the law.

I am well aware of this fact but it wasn't the captain that had a problem with the shirt at first. It was the people in the gate area.



And were does it end? I'm uncomfortable with a young African-American man on board because I was mugged by one once, so he needs to get off the airplane

Finally somebody making sense.

As for beers maybe if we all put a prybar in Tommy's wallet and put all our strength together maybe we can open it!

Beers on Tommy!

[emshighway]

I happen to work for one of those agencies with the three letters and do we look suspiciously at people? Yes, with reports I read all the time that send chills up my spine, you bet. Are some of the procedures we get from DC ridicous? Yep but we still follow them (shaking our heads).

I have to admit up front that I have had PAPD check persons hanging out in parks around the airport. It is not to harass to spotters but to ensure the people there are spotters. A manpad (shoulder mounted missile) is just a tube and a battery. It can be set up in seconds, fired and off the perps go.

We have nothing against the spotters, hey in a former life I would love to sit under the arriving flights. Life will never be the same again. After seeing dozens of friends and co-workers die and attend their funerals gives you incentive to never have that happen again.

The person in question from this article was questioned and asked to change his shirt to ease the concerns of his fellow passengers. Is this really as bad as he is trying to portray? No. He was looking to be a victim.

[hiss srq]

He was looking to be a victim.


Ding ding ding!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :idea: