Don’t Wear a Button!
Comments
Bull. Airport security hasn’t changed at all since 9/11, only paranoia. They aren’t doing anything to fix the problem--as evidenced by their clear desire to remove people who exercise their First Amendment rights.
Airports are using the same methods now that they did before 9/11--random security screenings. These are the very same screenings that detained Al Gore for hours, because his ticket number got pulled out of the hat.
Security’s tighter? The only tightening is that you now have to show your I.D. three times. Show my I.D. three times?? Heavens no, I certainly couldn’t show a fake I.D. to three different people and get away with it! Come on, Dubyah’s daughters had fake I.D.’s.
If you’ve somehow suckered yourself into thinking that it’s your civic duty to not wear potentially offensive buttons, or to keep your opinions at home instead of where they would actually have a chance of affecting change, then congratulations, you’ve fallen into the masses of ignorant Westerners who like Big Government to keep them screened from the real world and their activities.
Me? I hate politics because of this very thing. A bunch of trite crap. Government can’t give you freedom, they can only take it away.
Someone ought to bring a few cases of those buttons to airports and give them away for free.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I wonder if that pilot belongs to congress or not?
And your point is? Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn’t say that Congress are the ones that have free speech, which is how I’m assuming that you’re reading it.
Oh, wait, you’re talking about the pilot?
So your logic is that since he is not in Congress that he does have the right to supress the freedom of speech? Um, yeah, it doesn’t work like that. That would simply be Congress suppressing free speech through a third-party. They cannot make a law that allows someone else to prohibit free speech for them. The founders did not write that like an adjuster writes your homeowner’s insurance--there aren’t any loopholes.
You could take it on the grounds that the airplane is private property and that the pilot can eject anyone he chooses (which is in fact the grounds that they traditionally use to uphold such actions), then you have a situation similar to a shopping mall. Free speech is not protected in such private establishments. However, it is not so cut and dry with airports, of whom over 50% of the employees are now Federal, and policies are dictated by the new HS Cabinet. Not to mention every airline is now operating on government grant money.
Look at it this way: Can a taxi driver say, “No I won’t take you as a fare because you’re black?” Convince me that this is any different, and that stories like this shouldn’t make every citizen angry and I’ll concede.
Is this the same security that serves me a metal fork, a glass wine glass but a plastic knife?
Flying first class out of Houston, huh, Erin? Well, I guess that explains how you got the metal fork and glass, um, glass. I’ll be boarding a plane tomorrow myself, but it sure won’t be first class!!
I guess when you book a flight only a few days before it takes off, first class is the same price as economy!
I’m way late on this discussion, but I’ll make a couple points:
1. The airlines are privately owned companies. Freedom of speech only applies in public places.
2. Only an idiot would wear a button like that on a plane. That’d be like joking to the ticket clerk that you have a bomb in your suitcase.
3. The airlines are safer because we passengers will do some ass-kicking if someone tries to highjack us.
...It wasn’t meant to imply that he was actively suspected of being a terrorist… This is probably the point to the whole story. The problem arises however, with the button’s statement itself. I once heard someone say “Never give someone an option you don’t want them to use”. I think that in this case that is exactly what Mr. Gillmore has done. It is clear that Mr. Gillmore disagrees politically and philosophically with the security measures being taken by airports worldwide. That is his right. But like most people they wait until a police officer pulls them over to express how they feel about the governmet. In simile, a plane may not be the best place to express this opinion. The problem is wearing something that says (logically) “ I am a suspected terrorist because of this reason or that or .......” There is an underlying admission of guilt (be it sarcastic or whatever) to say you are a suspected terrorist. In short it tells people “ this is how I view myself whether it is true or not and to proove it I will declare it on my political button”. Why not instead wear a button that states “ I disagree with the Government’s view of the common citizen”. Or, “Let’s vote to ease security measures”. Imagine if you will thousands of buttons of different sarcastic ideology. One says “Suspected rapist” and another “Suspected child molestor”. Now in all seriousness, anyone can justify wearing those statements as fadish fun. It seems to be even more funny or to the point when you are NOT a rapist or child molestor. The problem is I am declaring my self a suspect of this or that behavior. The joke can sometimes get lost in the translation. And unfortunately the word “terrorism” is now on par with every other heinous behavior. Besides what is so political about “suspected terrorist” anyway? It fails to empower it’s reader with the sense of being able to change it. Therefore it falls into political sarcasm. Except that since September 11, no one is laughing.
By caesar ramos on July 21, 2003 at 03:44pm link