Slashdot Mirror
Traveler Detained for Anti-TSA Message
scifience writes "A traveler frustrated with recent changes to airport security procedures found himself detained in Milwaukee after writing a message critical of the TSA's leader on a plastic bag presented for screening. The message, which read "Kip Hawley is an Idiot," resulted in a confrontation with law enforcement, the traveler being told that his right to freedom of speech applied only "out there (pointing past the id checkers) not while in here [the checkpoint]." The story, which is detailed in a rapidly-growing thread on a discussion forum catering to frequent flyers, has attracted the interest of the ACLU, an AP reporter, and many others. The incident raises a number of interesting questions and concerns regarding just where our rights end."
RTFA (Read The Fucking Amendment)
" 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."
Keyword: congress.
Capisci? Your freedom of speech, or press, or whatever, exist _only_ in your relation to congress. Noone else. Not an airline, not your neighbour, not Slashdot, not your employer, etc. If I want to chuck you out of my party because of something you've said, freedom of speech is fully non-applicable and can kiss my ass. Freedom of speech does _not_ give you a right to troll on someone else's property (a message board, an airline, etc), or whatever else you may have imagined.
Yes, the airline is perfectly right there: you may have your freedom of speech over there, not over here. The airline has _no_ obligation to give him any freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if it's dissent or not.
Frankly, it's getting tiresome by now. For a nation so fond of chest-thumping about their freedoms, you'd think people would at least bother learning what those are. But nosiree, bob. Ever since bulletin boards, newsgroups, FIDO, MUDs, etc, were invented, the utterly sad reality pops up again and again that the average people have no freakin' clue.
They imagine that it's some non-existent exact opposite: that they have some sacred right to troll on someone else's property, but it's OK to bend over to the Government. That it's some 1st Ammendment violation if their goatse post on some private board is deleted, but it's OK if the governemnt does it. (After all, duh, it's the government. It's their job to decide what's allowed and whatnot.;) Which is getting it completely wrong.
Learn thy actual rights, lemming. Not knowing them is the first step towards losing them.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
While legally he should not've been detained for this, the guy was still being a dick by wearing this to the airport while expecting to fly somewhere. The fact that it's government sector merely means that the government should serve him anyway, not that he's any less a schmuck for doing it.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Christ! The Crusades ended, what, 800 years ago? And that's an excuse?
Please step away from your keyboard until you acquire an average IQ.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
So, are you suggesting that we put agents ant risk and inform the enemy by holding trials and explaining that we know this person is a terrorist wishing to harm americans or that they are in fact people who took arms or aided people against the United state or one of it's alies while in conflict of actions taken by the united states? Or should we just sit on the information and allow someone to plan a terrorist attack, fund the enemy, give stratigic information to the enemy or just plain join the enemy?
Wich is more expendable? The rights of a terrorist/person who takes action against the united states and its alies involved in a conflict or war or the agents and information gathering techniques that inform various agencies of plans to kill inocent civilians in time to stop most of it?
A wise man once said never explain away with malice that could be explained by ignorance. I'm going to say the lack of trials means we want to keep the enemy ignorant and the senator drawing the references to lack of evidence is the most ignorant of them all. Of course you like the NY times might think differently.