Booted From Airplane For Wearing Anti-TSA T-shirt

Cigarra writes "PhD student Arijit learned the hard way that in Brave New America you can't mock TSA's Security Theater and go on about your business. According to a recollection in RT.com: 'After being vigorously screened and questioned multiple times, Arijit says he was finally given permission, once more, to board his plane. The pilot of the aircraft, however, had had enough of the whole ordeal and asked the Delta supervisor to relay the message that, due to the discomfort the shirt had caused, neither Arijit nor his wife would be allowed to board the aircraft.' Just how much humiliation is the general American public willing to tolerate in the name of 'security'?"

Comments

It's even worse

[jodido]

Add in the racial bias in profiling and the racist prejudices of some passengers (this can get you booted too if a passenger decides s/he is "uncomfortable" on the plane with you on it) and you have quite an ugly situation.

Re:It's even worse

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it hard to take anyone seriously that uses the word "retarded" as a synonym of "dumb".

Since I doubt he meant to observe that slashdot can't speak...

I find it hard to take anyone seriously that uses the word "dumb" as a synonym of "stupid", while getting butthurt about "retarded". Clinically correct language: take it or leave it, but you can't have it both ways.

Re:It's even worse

[Sponge Bath]

I'm sure he was aware something like this could happen, but he had the balls to risk some heat to exercise his rights and bring attention to the stupidity of the TSA. Good for him, if more people had that kind of guts then the TSA could be tamed.

Re:It's even worse

[houstonbofh]

Poke an animal or a person, with a sharp stick, and see what kind of reaction you get - it won't be a smile and a "Let me do whatever it takes to help you...". Instead it will be similar to what this guy saw, by metaphorically poking the bureaucrats that are the TSA and airline security crowd with an offensive-to-them shirt.

Unless they work for Chick-Fil-A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg-jzlWcc0E

As a doctoral candidate, he should be intelligent enough to hypothesize this sort of reaction, yet when that is exactly what happens, he gets all huffy. No sympathy from me, for being a dumbass and now getting whiny about it. Man up, Arijit, stop being a whiny puss. Should the TSA and airline security be what it is now? IMO, hell no, it is doing no good, it is pointless, security theater. But that doesn't change that this person got pretty much what anyone with a lick of common sense would have guessed would be the sort of reaction one could expect. Newtons Law, and all that...

He was standing up for his rights and mocking a reviled government agency. And they let him past! It was Delta that bounced him and pitched a fit. Yep, Delta screwed him over because some people were uncomfortable. Never flying Delta...

Re:It's even worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is you're not allowed to abuse your power to get back at a provocateur if the person hasn't done anything illegal.

Which this is; a gross abuse of power: stopping somebody from traveling, potentially stealing hours if not DAYS of their time stranding them at an airport -> borderline imprisonment, simply because you "didn't like them". You can yell as much as you want about how "they started it" you were still the one that started the metaphorical punching AND you were several sizes larger than they were on the metaphorical scale.

Re:It's even worse

[Tridus]

Except that's not what happened. TSA cleared him without incident. Delta (as in: the airline) raised a fuss. TSA then cleared him *again* with considerably more hassle, and Delta still wouldn't let him on the plane.

TSA is bad, but they aren't actually the culprits in this story.

Re:It's even worse

[jythie]

Ah, blaming the victim because they were 'asking for it'. Even when one takes a risk, it is still the fault of the party that acted poorly. In this case the TSA and Delta are the ones that behaved badly... the guy did something risky yes, but risky well within his legal rights.

This is the same class of argument as those people who claim rape victims are not actually victims because they wore a short skirt or went home with someone they didn't know.. yeah it is a risk, but it is still the rapist in the wrong.... and telling people they should live in fear and avoid things because bad people will get them does not help, it just shames the behavior and normalizes the bad behavior.

seriously?

[jsepeta]

what kind of dipshit is afraid of a t-shirt? obviously this guy is being pushed around because of his name and genetic background. i smell LAWSUIT.

fear itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi folks,

Just as a brief FYI, we're REALLY starting to worry about you Yanks.
Please get your house in order, before things get truly out of control.
If you wait much longer (and we may be talking seconds here), the choice will be gone.

With compassion,
the Rest of the World

Re:fear itself

[Urza9814]

Dear rest of the world,

We're trying, but as you can see in the other replies, we've got some real idiots to deal with...

  - the (intelligent citizens of the) USA

KKK to TSA

[Cryacin]

Looks like the KKK renamed their acronym to something more paletable.

Re:KKK to TSA

[jythie]

Well, yes and no. It was the Delta employees who kicked them off the plane, but it was the TSA employees who were the ones actually causing all the inconvenience. They did a pragmatic thing for their other customers, but for the family it is being a victim twice.. once by the TSA, and a second time by Delta who, instead of going 'hey TSA, leave our paying customer alone' said 'well TSA, you are harassing one of our customers, and that harassment is impacting the rest of our customers, so we will punish the person you don't like so you will leave us alone'.

Which is, in its own way, pretty crummy.

Re:KKK to TSA

[Surt]

Treat them with respect if you want things to get steadily worse in the long run. Treat them with respect if you don't want things to get much worse in the short run.

Re:KKK to TSA

[Applekid]

The retard got what he deserved. He chose to wear a shirt to get attention and didn't like the attention he got as a result. That's up there with thinking it's a great idea of wearing a gay pride shirt and prancing around making an ass of yourself at a country fried rock concert to get attention for your political slant, cause, or moral views and being surprised when you get your ass beat by all the rednecks around you. Save that kind of shit for the appropriate venue, like your blog, with your like minded friends, or gay pride parades, places where you're not on enemy soil surrounded by the enemy itself. If you're determined to go to where the enemy lives, there is safety in numbers, don't be stupid and do that shit solo or you will get the attention you're looking for and you won't like it.

Clearly anyone who disagrees with the erosion of rights and the ever ballooning tyranny of the government should be treated shabbily.

Quite a lot

[ah.clem]

>> Just how much humiliation is the general American public willing to tolerate in the name of 'security'?"

Quite a lot apparently, quite a lot.

Re:Freedom to wear the shirt.

[imnotanumber]

Freedom to wear the shirt, not free from the consequences of wearing the shirt.

By that logic, even the people from North Korea are free, even to mock their beloved ruler...

Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h

[cffrost]

America is the only country that gropes It's passengers. Israel profiles, & has no hijackings.

Profiling by ethnicity doesn't work; for one thing, it's vulnerable to proxy bomb attacks. I've posted links on this many times before; search for the "Carnival Booth" paper from MIT. I recommend Schneier's site or DuckDuckGo.

El Al's security apparatus (behavioral profiling, interviews, luggage depressurization, and tarmac security, off the top of my head) have been said to be infeasible due to scalability in a country of over 300 million. However, I haven't seen an data to back up this claim, nor have I done the math.

I'm not saying I support the current system; I find it deplorable and refuse to fly, going on six years. I'd like to see a return to sane, pre-2001-09 security procedures. At least, that's what it'd take to get me to voluntarily set foot on a commercial airliner again.

Re:Freedom to wear the shirt.

[zzsmirkzz]

How can anyone be naive enough to think that you can wear an anti-TSA T-shirt when you're going through a TSA checkpoint and not have a problem?

I don't know, perhaps they read the First Amendment and thought it actually still applied.

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.

We have the right in this country to criticize our government, its agencies and agents without fear from legal repercussions from them. So, yes, when government agents harass him simply because he criticized them it is a big deal.

Re:Not the TSA this time

[tnk1]

If by lesson, you mean, "we can burn innocent people on trumped up charges and get away with it," then yes, there was a lesson there. However, I don't think it was the lesson you think was learned.

Thing is, this is a very strong example of the difference between public and private in the US. He did something he has every right to do, which is wear an inflammatory statement on a t-shirt. Delta did what they had every right to do: ban him from the aircraft. Arjit was counting on the fact that the government is bound by the First Amendment. What he failed to consider is that Delta Airlines is not, and they didn't feel like dealing with him.

In short, if he was prepared for this result as a part of a larger protest, then I get it. If he just wanted to get from one place to another, he's a moron.

Respect? Question!

[jeko]

That's odd. In the America I grew up, on a military base surrounded by F-4 Phantom jets and armed men ridiculously overqualified to kill you, on the school on that base I was taught to QUESTION AUTHORITY, to HOLD AUTHORITY ACCOUNTABLE, that my father and his colleagues practiced the bloody art of mayehm to KEEP US FREE, not to kowtow to those in authority.

I was taught that we routinely hold elections so we could hold elected officials, referred to as PUBLIC SERVANTS, accountable for their actions. I grew up among armed men in uniform who took me to national monuments and proudly declaimed that We the People were the source of authority, that men in uniform always, always, ALWAYS deferred to a civilian commander in chief.

Reading your post sounds odd to someone raised by the sound of Phantom and Tomcat jets. Respecting authority for authority's sake was something we said the Commies and the Nazis did. :-) Americans were born free and bowed to no one. Give me Liberty or Give Me Death. Don't Tread on Me.

Of course, I'm sorry. Reading your post, I assume you must come from some tragic country like Burma or North Korea where you have to bow and scrape just to get by. Please send our warmest regards and deepest repect to Aung San Suu Kyi, who knows more about what it means to be an American than you ever will.

Hey, wait a minute. Cartman? Eric Cartman?! Is that you Cartman?

Nope, not even close

[jeko]

If you are in the military and a general comes, you salute him even if you hate his guts, and you don't give him the middle finger.

Nope. You absolutely don't salute Him. Unless he has personally done something that has earned your respect, you're never saluting him.

You're saluting the uniform. You always, always, always salute the office, not the man. The office, again, is a function of the People of the United States, and a symbol of our highest ideals. That uniform is a walking implementation of the idea that "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." That's why it's worthy of a salute, because it carries an Idea, not just Power. That's why the Oath you swear when you pick up a gun is always to the Constitution, never a man.

If all that uniform carries is Power, if the only thing a uniform has to offer is Force, then "it is [your] right, it is [your] duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for [your] future security."

It chills me to my bones to hear an American claim that a government official should be respected simply because he has brute force behind him. Whatever happened to "the Spirit of '76?"

Re:Nope, not even close

[Lucractius]

People like yourself give me hope that one day I will be able to enjoy a visit to a USA that wont keep my prints on file permanently just cause i wasnt born in the country. People should be able to come to the, 'land of the free', 'home of the brave' and marvel at the things accomplished by one of the greatest nations in history. Not feel like they are entering a suspicious surveillance state where as a foreigner they will be measured, details filed permanently away 'just in case', and tracked with advanced dragnet digital surveillance systems looking for key words regardless of who they are, be it 6 year old girl from France, 30 year old man from Japan, or 80 year old woman from Iraq, all because the people are too afraid to accept the reality of life that it includes risks, that bad things happen, bombs go off, people die, and more of their people die of heart disease, cancer and crossing the street than they ever lost in a war anywhere or on any stupid ideological invisible enemy.

Your Intelligent words have made me smile and reminded me why I grew up as a child admiring all the great things done by the USA and wanting to go see those places.

Did you sleep through this part of bootcamp?

[jeko]

If you have a moral objection to an order, you are obligated to make your concerns known. However, making your concerns known does not have to happen immediately.

Were you asleep that day? Does "Nuremburg" ring a bell? How about "My Lai?" If you have a moral objection to an order, you PUT YOUR DAMNED WEAPON DOWN! Your official scripted response is "I'm sorry, sir, but that is an unlawful order and I cannot follow it." The military makes it crystal clear that not only do you have a duty to refuse an unlawful order, but you will be prosecuted and punished if you follow that order and commit a crime. You absolutely do not "wait until later." You refuse that order right then, right there, or pay the price later for following it.

Seriously, you can't tell the difference between saluting the office and saluting the man? It does have a touch of subtlety, I grant you. Were you an Aggie by any chance? :-)