Man Wearing "Freedom or Die" T-Shirt Stopped at Airport

reply to post by Sestias

twenty years ago a "freedom or die" t-shirt could probably be worn without
incident in public, in the U.S. or the U.K., times have changed.

I wonder if that would hold true in the U.S.

I vaguelly recall reading about a similar incident that did happen in the US. Somebody was wearing a shirt that said "Live free or die" and was stopped by airport security.

The amusing thing, of course, is that Live free or die is the official state motto of New Hampshire.

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Pimpish
He has every right to be rude, at least here in America, and I thought it was the same over there as far as freedom of speech.

he has a right to be rude, sure, but that doesn't make it a good idea. this could be viewed as falling under the old "right to shout fire in a cinema" clause.

he has the right to free speech but, in this case, his behavior is a deliberate attempt to instill a needless sense of panic in others without any redeeming merit.

[edit on 15/3/10 by pieman]

Really?,.. come on.. that sounds really dramatic , like we're uncivilized knuckle draggers who uncontrollably freak out all the time.. because of t-shirts.

It's just a piece of cloth with words / designs, is everyone wearing a polo t-shirt a freakish polo loyalist?.. an Alligator hater on a izod jihad? lol Im wearing a guiness t-shirt, I must be drunk.. and dedicated to stomping every dude who dons a coors or corona t-shirt.. in the balls, so they can reproduce.

Maybe it was laundry day, or dude threw it on as an afterthought or he puked all over himself and bought it from a thrift store. It's hilarious some goofy barely trained security guard who probably keeps failing the police written or psychological test, assumed people are dedicated to the words / logos on their t-shirts..

You know the ad nauseum "fear, fear, fear" propaganda is working when frik'n t-shirts scare people...

ed:sp

[edit on 15-3-2010 by GovtFlu]

I am very pleased with the apology given to the man who was in trouble for wearing the shirt.

Free speech is still alive and obviously the government is acknowledging that.

I must say I think is a good sign for the future.

Originally posted by Pimpish
Which is just categorically untrue and a ridiculous statement. Tell that to the people who can only go to websites approved by their governement.

i don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand, free speech doesn't mean you can say anything you like, you can't knowingly lie in court, you can't shout fire in a crowded room, you can't incite people to violence etc., what it means is that you can say something which is offensive to others.

you have to be saying something which somebody would rather you didn't say to call it free speech. i just don't know how you can talk about free speech and not understand this basic concept.

Originally posted by john124
Where would you be banned on the Internet for having the username "freedom or die"? Certainly not here.

if my user name was "pieman-loves-to-smoke-weed" i might be banned, such are the T&C's on this board. might be a hobbit reference but that's not how it'll be perceived.

Originally posted by john124
Are you serious?

It doesn't threaten anyone at all.

"freedom or die" is a different statement than "give me freedom or death" or "live free or die", these statement suggest the wearer is willing to die for freedom, however "freedom or die" suggests that the wearer is willing to kill if he doesn't get the brand of freedom he expects.

the suggestion is there.

Originally posted by GovtFlu
Really?,.. come on.. that sounds really dramatic , like we're uncivilized knuckle draggers who uncontrollably freak out all the time.. because of t-shirts.

would you say that somebody who is already uncontrollably and irrationally panicked, lets say someone with a fear of flying, is likely to feel more or less comfortable when they see that a fellow passanger is willing to die for something as fluid and personal as "freedom".

it's called empathy!!

reply to post by pieman


Again you go back to the yelling fire argument. What does that have to do with this guy wearing this shirt? Not related. This guy wasn't putting anyone in any danger, unlike yelling fire in a crowded area.

You clearly are the one who does not understand the point I am making. I gave you many reasons why freedom of speech is important and the comment you made was ridiculous. Instead, you choose to ignore that and spout off some nonsense about shouting fire, which has nothing to do with the situation at hand, nor what we were discussing.

Originally posted by pieman

"freedom or die" is a different statement than "give me freedom or death" or "live free or die", these statement suggest the wearer is willing to die for freedom, however "freedom or die" suggests that the wearer is willing to kill if he doesn't get the brand of freedom he expects.

the suggestion is there.

I'm inclined to agree.

I think a lot of people believe that anything to do with "freedom" should be protected speech and considered appropriate in airports. Americans like that word.

But what if someone who fit a "middle eastern" profile was wearing a T-shirt that said "Death to Infidels?"

What if someone wore a shirt that said "Death to Zionist Oppressors?"

Or what about "I have nothing against Negroes. I think everyone should own one?"

A lot of people would have no trouble finding these offensive, and discourage wearing them in public places.

There are free speech absolutists who would insist that anything anybody wants to say should be protected, no matter where it is said. But as you point out, common sense and taste should dictate what one wears in public places.

reply to post by Sestias


freedom of speech goes both ways that is the absolute FACT,

the "paradox" is that you have the right to shout fire at a theater even thou there is no fire but then in return TPTB have a right to apprehend you for "stupid conduct".

so yes you have a right to to say what you want but the thin line between what is accepted by the law and what is not is for you to comprehend.

Originally posted by Sestias

Originally posted by pieman

"freedom or die" is a different statement than "give me freedom or death" or "live free or die", these statement suggest the wearer is willing to die for freedom, however "freedom or die" suggests that the wearer is willing to kill if he doesn't get the brand of freedom he expects.

the suggestion is there.

I'm inclined to agree.

I think a lot of people believe that anything to do with "freedom" should be protected speech and considered appropriate in airports. Americans like that word.

But what if someone who fit a "middle eastern" profile was wearing a T-shirt that said "Death to Infidels?"

What if someone wore a shirt that said "Death to Zionist Oppressors?"

Or what about "I have nothing against Negroes. I think everyone should own one?"

A lot of people would have no trouble finding these offensive, and discourage wearing them in public places.

There are free speech absolutists who would insist that anything anybody wants to say should be protected, no matter where it is said. But as you point out, common sense and taste should dictate what one wears in public places.

Common sense and taste?? by whose standards?.. you really don't want to go there.. 1st the church will get involved and try to enforce their standard, then every other tribe of weirdos will crawl out of the cracks sporting what they consider "tasteful".. even if the point is to sour differing tastes just for the sake of expressing free speech.

After the lunatic fringe freaks have their fun expressing themselves, the govt will step in with some uber stupid legislation.. before too long prisonplanet.com will be posting articles about kids soccer teams being escorted off passenger jets by TSA clowns for wearing "intimidating uniforms" and how hockey fans wearing opposing teams jerseys are banned from airports.

When is the last time ANYONE was scared by a fruit of the loom with words? we are talking about frikn t-shirts that are usually not dangerous, definitely wont leap off a stranger to choke you to death, and can easily be ignored.

Seriously, if you get scared by the cotton blend the dude next to you is wearing.. you're an epic vagina who shouldn't leave the safety of the basement to venture into the dangerous scary world. On top of that, if you are under the impression you have special insight powers to spot potential trouble makers based on their t-shirt.. you're delusional bat crap bonkers and need years of therapy..

What if he was a serving soldier, who had just come back from Afghanistan fighting for what we call "the free world"?

More proof again that we are not free.

Originally posted by pieman
just a thought but what if he was wearing a mock suicide vest? he has the right to wear what he likes, after all.

of course he has a right to wear what he likes but you have to admit, it's awfully rude of him. he might feel like he's striking out against "the man" but all he's likely to do is freak out the few of passenger's on the flight who are nervous of flying generally.

exercising rights without taking responsibility just robs others of their liberty.

If wearing something like this "scares" the sheeple around him, too bad. The sheeple need to be scared. Maybe (just maybe) they'll wake up.

I'd be going over to the dude (or a dudette ) and asking where they got the shirt. Might just make a friend for the trip.

A t-shirt is a long way from a expak vest friend. Real or not, that would be as obvious as a fart in church and would have someone's ass beaten pretty quick.

[edit on 16/3/10 by felonius]

Yes, we do have the right to freedom of speech in the UK, under The European Human Rights Act. Does this make what this man did clever? No.

He obvioulsy didn't think about the situation he was getting himself into.

It's as bad as the major faux pas I found myself in when I went to a Christian retreat on Lake Tahoe wearing a T-shirt saying "I found Jesus... He was behind the couch".

Didn't go down too well that one, but in my defence I didn't know it was a retreat until I got there.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by nik1halo]

Originally posted by DaMod
Have you ever seen an airline dress code for passengers posted? I haven't. That statement is reaching to say the least. If they posted a dress code publicly then I may agree with you, but as far as I can tell it's a reach. Even gas stations can post "no shirt no shoes no service".

Can you show me the law that states they must post this dress code where you can see it? Gas stations put those little signs up so they do not have to tell someone to get out every ten minutes, not because law says they have to warn you of their dress code.

Your point is simply one of whining that no one told you ahead of time what the rules were. Ever been to a nice country club? Please explain to me where the dress codes are posted? Now, how about you toss on some ripped jeans and a Megadeth t-shirt and walk into one of those country clubs and find that posted dress code.

Let me know how that works out when you get back.

They are a private business and can decide you need to dress any way they like at will. They can change their minds each and every minute if they so choose to and they do not have to post jack about it.

If you do not like the way airlines conduct business, do not utilize them. You can use private planes and fly naked if you like. That is America!

You have to be made aware of policies in order to follow them. Unless of course it's a 7-10 business day return policy. Online retailers seem to have a big problem keeping up with that one!

When they tell you what they require of you in order for you to enjoy their business, they are making you aware.

You seem to think there is some law or regulation that insists they give you fair warning of their dress code policies. I will be more than happy to take a look at this law as soon as you find it for me, ok?

Originally posted by dgtempe
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

That's fine except for about 10 years ago, we were free to wear ANYTHING we wanted unless it called for the death of someone.

Things have changed. There is no freedom of speech. Now, having said that, the guy wearing the t shirt knows this and he was trying to create a stirr. Some people love causing commotions.

Teflon pans used to be safe, cigarettes did not cause cancer, aids did not exist, etc. Times they are a changing. Rights come and go, science evolves. That does not mean that any private business have to bend to the will of anyone. This is capitalism and when enough people wear said t-shirts in order to make the airlines lose money, then they may change their policy.

Tell me something. If you opened your own private business, would you want every single person on the planet suing you because you run your business a certain way? You are going to offend or provide a disservice to someone. Can you think of a business in this country that does not have detractors? Find that business, then we can remake the airlines to fit that model and it will all be paradise.

Until then, the airlines have the right to run their own business before anyone has the right to do anything they want on those privately owned planes.

Originally posted by felonius
If wearing something like this "scares" the sheeple around him, too bad. The sheeple need to be scared. Maybe (just maybe) they'll wake up.

need to be? really, why? what makes you think that people aren't awake or that they don't choose to sleep.

what if they don't want to wake up, what if they refuse, what will you do then?

reply to post by K J Gunderson

If you do not like the way airlines conduct business, do not utilize them. You can use private planes and fly naked if you like. That is America!

Really? I thought we were talking about Britain here. Hmm, they must have moved Gatwick.

I do agree with the rest of your statement though. Gatwick is a private business and so, they can operate under any rules they wish to apply, as long as they are in accordance with British and European law.

Having said that, it is a moot point anyway, as the airport management admitted that the guard was in the wrong and apologised, so this is not airport policy.

[edit for spellnig]

[edit on 16-3-2010 by nik1halo]

Oh big deal, I'm sure this guy will happily wear his "grandma bought me this T-shirt while on holiday" next time.

I had a similar situation happen to me a while ago, my T-shirt slogan "I Explode on command" got some funny looks and a few questions at the airport, well at least they didn't check the back of my underwear - slogan "exit only, no entry" may have got me locked up!

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Pimpish
The t-shirt is not even threatning.

the shirt isn't threatening to you, a person who has a phobia of flying and is already close to panic might perceive it differently.

anyone that easily sparked off into a panic attack, which could cause more panic on board from other passengers shouldnt be allowed on a plane tbh
they seam more a liability then some guy with a t-shirt

Originally posted by nik1halo
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

If you do not like the way airlines conduct business, do not utilize them. You can use private planes and fly naked if you like. That is America!

Really? I thought we were talking about Britain here. Hmm, they must have moved Gatwick.

Oh yeah, my bad. I forgot that in Britain you are forced to utilize state run airlines? So so sorry. If you do not want to utilze them, you can use private planes and fly around naked if you like. That is Britain!

Better?

I do agree with the rest of your statement though. Gatwick is a private business and so, they can operate under any rules they wish to apply, as long as they are in accordance with British and European law.

Having said that, it is a moot point anyway, as the airport management admitted that the guard was in the wrong and apologised, so this is not airport policy.

That does not make it a moot point unless it also erases this thread. The argument presented was that this man had a right to wear that t-shirt and the airline had no right to tell him he could not.

Whether it was policy or not, whether they apologized or not, the argument presented in the OP is about rights. The airline is in the right either way.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


This has got bugger all to do with the airline. It was the airport security staff that made the mistake and one man alone at that.

This has been blown up completely out of proportion. It was a minor incident of an over-zealous security guard, who actually accepted the guy's offer to simply cover the slogan up. I wouldn't even have complained.

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by Sestias

 

the "paradox" is that you have the right to shout fire at a theater even thou there is no fire but then in return TPTB have a right to apprehend you for "stupid conduct".

Actually, you can't FALSELY shout "fire" in a crowded theatre:

From WIKI: WIKIPEDIA

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor and frequent misquoting of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The misquote fails to mention falsely shouting fire to highlight that speech which is merely dangerous and false which can be distinguished from truthful but also dangerous. The quote is used as an example of speech which serves no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by Sestias]