Slashdot Mirror
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'?"
I mean come on "Arijit" clearly a terrorist threat.
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.
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.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
From the same site:
What would have likely been a routine flight out of a Florida airport this weekend ended with a woman being sent to the emergency room after TSA agents insisted on groping a traumatized rape victim in a security pat-down that put her in the hospital.
Live free or die indeed.
If the Miss Universe pageant had been boarding that plane, the TSA would have been to busy putting them through the body scanner to even notice this guy's shirt.
sudo make me a sandwich
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
Looks like the KKK renamed their acronym to something more paletable.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
>> Just how much humiliation is the general American public willing to tolerate in the name of 'security'?"
Quite a lot apparently, quite a lot.
"Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
Arijit's actual blog Arijit Vs. Delta
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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...
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.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
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.
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.
His behavior might have something to do with the fact that he is being treated for stage IV colon cancer. He probably cares less than the average person what society's long-term opinion of him will be, and hopes that his behavior (and any reaction to it) could be a force for long-term improvement of the world.
Seeing as all airlines are private they are in a special situation where they should not be allowed to act arbitrarily. We aren't talking about someone wandering into your private business here. As long as you provide a vital public service you should be beholden to the Constitution. If this is unacceptable then the airlines should be nationalized.
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?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
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?"
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
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? :-)
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."