John has sent me the following response to the comments on the post about his BA experience. I have posted my view here.
From John Gilmore:
It’s been interesting reading. I’d like to respond. I suppose the obvious place to start is with Seth Finkelstein’s trolls. (Of course he is doing what he accuses me of — making outrageous statements and then chuckling when people take them seriously).
I flew to London on Virgin Atlantic two days after the BA incident. I am happy to report that I wore the button, and that neither their passengers, cabin stewards, nor pilots were hysterical. I wore the button in London. I crossed the Channel where the crew gave the shorted possible glance at my passport. I wore it yesterday in Paris.
The button is not a joke. It’s a serious statement which one may agree or disagree with. The point that people seem to be missing is that a “suspected terrorist” is not the same as a “terrorist”. Yet, that’s exactly the conflation that has occurred: treat every citizen like a suspect, and every suspect like a terrorist.
In London and Paris the newspapers are taking Guantanamo seriously — because their own citizens are imprisoned there without trials. The corrupt US government was careful to remove the one US citizen they found — but the citizens of other sovereign countries, even those of very close war allies, are in prison. Without trial and without lawyers, and with intent to try them in front of judges sworn to take orders from the President. I have no doubt that American citizens, such as myself, would be treated in the same way if the public and the courts would let our fascist leader get away with it.
On the BA flight, in my carry-on bag, I had brought the current issue of Reason magazine, which has a cover story with my picture and the label “Suspected Terrorist”. (It didn’t even occur to me to censor my reading material on the flight; I must need political retraining. I hadn’t read most of the issue, including Declan’s piece in it, plus I wanted to show it to Europeans I met on my vacation.) During the British Airways incident I never removed the magazine from my bag, but supposing I had done so, and merely sat in my seat and read it, would that have been grounds to remove me from the flight (button or no button)?
I am not a lawyer (lucky me!) but I do follow legal issues. The carriage of passengers by common carriers is governed by their tariffs, filed with the government. Common carriers are NOT permitted to refuse service to anybody for any reason. In return they are not held liable for the acts of their customers (e.g. transporting dangerous substances, purloined intellectual property, etc). BA’s “Conditions of Carriage” are part of their tariffs (other parts include their prices, etc). You will note paragraph 7: they can refuse passage…7) If you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security. The crew ONLY has the authority to order passengers around when the orders relate to safety or security. An order to cease reading a book would not qualify.
Some people here (including Mr. Troll) think that the minor risk that someone on the plane will have a panic attack after reading a tiny button, makes the button a “safety” issue, as if I had falsely cried “fire” and risked starting a stampede. Such people seem to be holding me responsible for the actions of others. Were I on such a plane, whether or not I was wearing a button, the person I’d ask them to remove is the one having a panic attack, not the one sitting quietly in their seat.
(Similarly, some people hold me responsible for the inconvenience to passengers. As Virgin Atlantic demonstrated, the airline were in complete control of whether or not to inconvenience the passengers.)
Let me also say in my defense that I seldom fly these days, so I am not used to life in a gulag. I had zero expectation that my refusal to doff a button would result in the captain returning the plane to the gate. But even if I did fly often, my response would be the same: to constantly push back against the rules that turn a free people into the slaves of a totalitarian regime. I push back using the rights granted me by the constitutional structure of the country, plus my own intelligence and resources. Way too many of you readers are like the Poles who, under orders from swaggering bullies, built the brick wall around their own ghetto, as shown in the award-winning movie “The Pianist” (which I watched on the Virgin Atlantic flight). The US is currently filling the swaggering bully role at home, in Iraq, and in the rest of the world. (Come out to free countries and ask around, if you disagree.)
Here are some interesting incidents relating to these issues:
- Dr. Bob Rajcoomar gets a settlement and formal apology from TSA — only after suing with help from ACLU. Dr. Rajcoomar, a U.S. citizen and Lt. Colonel in the United States Army Reserve, is of Indian descent. After an in-flight incident involving an unruly passenger, Air marshals handcuffed Dr. Rajcoomar without explanation and took him into the custody of Philadelphia police. His wife Dorothy, who was also on the flight, was given no information on what had happened to her husband. Because the authorities confiscated Dr. Rajcoomar’s cellular phone, she had no way to contact him. After four hours of detention, TSA personnel told him that he had been detained because air marshals on board the flight did not “like the way he looked.” The agency’s official explanation for Dr. Rajcoomar’s treatment is that while on board, Dr. Rajcoomar had been observing the actions of the air marshals “too closely”!
- ACLU sues four airlines over ejecting passengers because of their race. Subsequent news in these lawsuits is that at least three of them have survived the airlines’ “motion to dismiss”, i.e. the court thinks there is a real injury to these peoples’ rights.
- Passenger detained for speaking with journalist about a NASA nuclear rocket project, while waiting for his airplane.
- TSA’s CAPPS 2 will track every passenger by their date of birth, home address, home phone, and full name — and stop or search anyone based on secret criteria. The TSA’s August 1 announcement makes every airport a “law enforcement checkpoint” which you cannot pass through without having your “papers in order”.
- TSA publishes rules demanding ID on passenger boats. (TSA and cruise lines have already been requiring these IDs, but under unpublished regulations. Ditto for Amtrak trains and long-haul bus lines.)
Above, Floyd McWilliams posted a perfect example of what’s wrong with this debate:
Gilmore is insulted by being labeled a “suspected terrorist.” Okay, but then how would an airline figure out that he’s a peaceable fellow except by, well, identifying him? Did he expect to be labeled a low security risk because he wasn’t swarthy?
No. I expected to be treated as peaceable because I had not breached the peace. I expected to be treated as innocent because I was not guilty of any crime.
OH JOY! Now I get to try to defend myself from being trashed as a troll on the front page of Lessig’s blog. It’s ludicrous.
The way to success is saying simple, popular, demagoguery. I knew I shouldn’t have posted my dissent in the first place, but I made a mistake. Live and learn 🙁
Well Seth, I hope you learned something from this. When the Idle Rich engage in their deeply-felt acts of symbolic disobedience to protect your freedom to dissent, you have to remember to use that freedom as they dictate. And if it seems to you that these champions of humanity don’t have especially high regard for the actual specimens thereof, you should remember that they occupy a more privileged position in the moral cosmos than those of us who board airliners simply for the purpose of earning a living, and defer to their superior moral judgment.
It’s also great to learn, from the Enlightened Gilmore, that President Bush is the one who’s been “bullying” the Iraqis, and not those fellows who actually tortured, raped, and murdered them. That’s the superior moral judgment at work.
Dammit, Richard, you’re projecting again! Try to resolve your personal issues somewhere outside the political arena.
Seth,
Stop whining.
You accused Gilmore of trolling what, about two dozen times? And you did it in comments section of a very widely read blog. The fact that it was in comments and not on the “front page” is not as significant as you make it out to be, and I kinda suspect you wouldn’t have minded very much if, say, Prof. Lessig were to praise one of your comments and reprint it as a separate entry.
Now that you have been replied in kind, you throw a fit?
In fact, I think you were right and Gilmore was wrong. I thought your analysis of Gilmore’s actions was spot-on. Your whining here and in your own blog about being trashed by Gilmore, on the other hand, is contemptible.
Take it in stride and walk proudly — or get out of the kitchen.
An order to cease reading a book would not qualify.
It would qualify if there was turbulence and the crew felt there was a danger of loose objects becoming projectiles.
At the end of the day, you’re a paying guest on their ship and you need to do whatever they say. If you don’t like it, find another airline or don’t fly.
Some folks might not remember this but before 9/11 there was a pile of news coverage on air rage. There were all kinds of theories on its cause, but in fact most of the passengers involved were simply drunk a__holes.
Would you let a really scruffy looking dude wearing an “Armed and Hammered” T-shirt take your daughter out on a date? What is you talked to him, and you found him articulate and funny? What if he told you that the future really sucks and he has no other hobbies besides getting drunk, playing Nintendo and having sex with your daughter?
Ahhh, the interesting parts really are in the grey parts of the black and white lines.
The whole point is that Mr Gilmore wanted to be afforded the equivalent of shouting fire in a theater. It appears Virgin is lax on security measures. I’ll be sure to avoid. Thanks.
Anatoly, I regret your view of my reaction as “contemptible”. I felt sandbagged. Please forgive me my humanity.
Note, as a factual, numerical matter, there is a vast difference between the front page, and all the echoes, versus comments down in hoi polloi land.
Indeed, I know, that does sound bad – the moral equivalence says that calling powerful people on trolling gives them the right to trash you in response.
Don’t view it as suddenly throwing a fit out of the blue. It’s the problem of, again as I noted above, “The way to success is saying simple, popular, demagoguery.”
That’s my unhappy point – that I have to leave “the kitchen”, because I’ll just get burned, from not having the resources to fight the heat. I really hate that conclusion, and it’s been bothering me for a long time, on many levels, much more than this particular incident. But it seems to be true.
I would have hoped that the lessig blog site wouldn’t be a place to degenerate into reliance on the word troll. It’s only purpose is to trigger a knee jerk revulsion and avoid debate/thought. It should be retired as a silly word that has been misapplied and abused so much as to have become meaningless.
Seth, look at it this way: literally dozens of people now know your name! 🙂
You’re right of course that being trashed on the front page gives you a much reduced ability to rebut down in the comments section; but that’s just the way blogs work. Ultimately it’s up to the editor (Prof. Lessig) to decide what appears on his front page. I don’t think it was anything personal. If you feel defamed, I suppose you could sue 🙂
Back to Gilmore or Gillmore or however he spells it…obviously he doesn’t get it, or refuses to acknowledge reality. You can’t wear a swastika and shave your head and not expect to be treated as a potential threat. You can’t say something threatening the President of the United States, even in jest, without it being looked into by the FBI or Secret Service (hi guys!). And now you can’t walk onto an airplane and proclaim yourself a terrorist, even only a suspected terrorist. It’s all the same thing: regardless of whether you intend to actually do anything or not, the mere possibility is so threatening and the consequences of waiting for you do something so potentially devastating that presumptive actions must be taken.
By extension, Mr. Gilmore would have us live in a world where you would only be treated as a terrorist if you had actually previously committed terrorism. Unfortunately that would mean that we could only treat Mr. Gilmore as a terrorist if he had already flown a plane into a building, at which point I think we can all agree that it would be too late.
Rob, are you saying that one can be a terrorist without having committed an act of terrorism?
Of course one is only guilty of a crime at the point one commits a crime(or, in a legal sense, at the point one is found guilty in a court of law for a crime previously committed). I’m sorry if it is too late at that point, that is the way it works.
What is your alternative? A world where an elite makes predictions on who they think future criminals might be and are empowered to act on these predictions to punish or reeducate?
Frankly, some of the responses here suggest we have gone much farther off the deep end than even gilmore thinks we have. I’m not trying to pick on you Rob but your comment gives me the willies.
Seth, it’s funny how you show up with the high and whiney attitude everywhere I seem to go…
Gillmore, you did something with an intent to get noticed, you got noticed, and now you’re up in arms about it? whatever. Yes it sucks that everone getting on a plane is a suspected terrorist, and your actions have admirably confirmed that. I have more feeling for those who didn’t set out to cause trouble and still had troubles in airports and getting on planes. Needless, maybe your little theatrics will get the issue noticed in wider circles, that would be good. But I don’t understand how you can pretend this wasn’t EXACTLY the sort of thing you were hoping would happen.
The big issue here, as I see it, is that innocent until proven guilty is no longer even paid lip service to. Travel and you are a suspect. Question the status quo and you are fit to be hanged. In every area of action and thought, if you do not follow the whims of the government and big businesses, you are a criminal, even if there isn’t yet a law.
What do we need to do to stop that, to turn the tide around? Theatrics with airport security surely aren’t going to cut it, what’s the next step?
I don’t have answers, and I’m looking to the people I think might for some insight and direction, only to find them fighting over who’s cooler. This is why we will lose, too many egos, and not enough cooperation.
Please prove me wrong.
So, Steven…if I’m lunging at you with a knife, you’re not going to dodge out of the way, and then have my arrested for attempted murder? Wait…I haven’t even harmed you in any way…why am I in a jail cell? Your logic is flawed.
As a whole, the facts are getting lost in the details: I’ve yet to see someone logically deny the pilot’s right to eject Mr. Gilmore, and until that happens I think the discussion is moot.
BA wants to give it’s pilots this type of power, and if you don’t like it, you can choose not to fly them. You have the power of the purse. If I don’t like the editorial policy of the Times, because they reject every letter to the editor I send, then I don’t read it. I don’t complain about how the Times is infringing my right to spread my political philosophy. And when I choose not to read it, I don’t complain that my access to information is restricted. I don’t see how this issue is any more significant.
-kd
Well, so we should just allow people to walk onto planes with explosives and box cutters in the name of freedom of travel? 3000 dead are acceptable losses? No, I think taking some precautions is reasonable. I don’t want to be worrying every time I get on a plane that there might be some loon with a briefcase full of nitro (or a suitcase full of it and a remote control detonator) in the seat next to me.
It’s all well and good to tsk-tsk and moan about lost freedoms and how we’re all unjustly suspected. I can’t leave my truck parked outside my house with the doors unlocked. We have guys cruising the streets looking for garages with the doors open, taking stuff even if people are home. My friend walked into his garage one afternoon and found a neighbor kid looting his beer fridge, explaining a year-long issue of stock shrinkage. I don’t trust people any farther than I can throw them, which is not very far, and that goes double for when I’m in a situation such as in an airplane where I have no control over what they might do. That’s what gives me the willies.
Nice “Minority Report” reference. You can’t have freedom in a world where people don’t respect each other’s rights. In one-on-one situations I’ll take my chances, but in situations where the lives of hundreds or even thousands are at stake, I absolutely want that elite force protecting me even if it costs me some freedom.
It’s a different world now. Terrorists are no longer stuck on the other side of the world. They have proven that they can come right into our country and blow us up. We must take whatever measures are necessary to prevent another 9/11, because I don’t want it to be MY office building they run a plane into next.
Hi Rob…your comment might be a little bit too dramatic.
No one here (or elsewhere) is arguing that we allow box cutters or explosives on airplanes, and no one is asking you to leave your car unlocked, or expecting you to. All that is said here is that the price of freedom does incur a cost on liberty, and to keep a close watch on that….that it is an issue worth investigating.
“We must take whatever measures are necessary to prevent another 9/11, because I don�t want it to be MY office building they run a plane into next.”
neither do I. but one measure might be to implant digitally encrypted chips into every US citizen with their tax/criminal/purchasing/traveling history into their spinal cords, and track them all.
another measure would be to revamp airport security, improve intelligence, and build more secret ‘panic’ buttons into planes.
which measure would you rather start with ? My point is that
Karl —
your lunging/knife analogy isn’t quite apt here. Gilmore wore a button and did not physically attack anyone.
“I�ve yet to see someone logically deny the pilot�s right to eject Mr. Gilmore, and until that happens I think the discussion is moot.”
As you can see in BA’s �Conditions of Carriage�…the pilot CAN refuse to fly Gilmore, because Gilmore refused an order of the crew “relating to safety or security”. The flight attendant thought his button *might* cause a panic, and “ordered” him to remove the button. The judgement made by the flight attendant can be VERY arbitrary, as you can see. A flight attendant on Virgin Atlantic, two days later, must thought differently, because he wore the button, was allowed to fly, and no passenger panicked in a way that interrupted the flight or posed a problem.
So you see, the point at hand (the way I see it) is not whether the pilot can refuse to carry him….it’s how varied the judgements of flight attendants can be.
There is NO power of the purse here, at all, because there is NO SET POLICY as to what state of mind is required of flight attendants. You cannot bet on what dress will or will not be questioned.
“[I]f I�m lunging at you with a knife, you�re not going to dodge out of the way, and then have my arrested for attempted murder? Wait�I haven�t even harmed you in any way�why am I in a jail cell? Your logic is flawed.”
– Karl
Karl, if you lunge at me with a knife, of course I (and everyone here with a will to live) will dodge out of the way. Of course you haven’t physically harmed anyone and of course you are going to be in a jail cell for attempted murder. You seem to think that Steven said that every crime has to involve “harm” to someone. All that has been said is that you are only guilty of the crimes you commit.
Likewise, people who plan to commit a terrorist act but don’t or are stopped before they do are not guilty of committing that terrorist act! There are probably other crimes they are guilty of, however; there are a whole bunch of conspiracy charges, they could be guilty of attempted murder or other “attempted” crimes, it is illegal to smuggle explosives and now box cutters on to planes, so they could be guilty of that.
Rob — sorry there, didn’t finish my comment to you. My point is that what makes the US “free” and “safe” are sometimes at odds. One end of the spectrum is that everyone is free to do whatever they want, at anytime. The other end is where every piece of the society is controlled very carefully, with security trumping freedom in every way. Neither is good. An acceptable balance might be best.
Box cutters ? No.
Buttons with political expressions ? Virgin Atlantic apparently thinks that’s okay, British Airways does not.
Oh, but wait…what if it’s not a real knife, but a collapsable stage knife. And, what if I’m lunging at people in an attempt to make a political statement about how people who lunge at people with fake knives are ‘assumed to be attempted murders’. I haven’t done anything wrong…it’s these other people and their ‘assumptions’ about what a ‘knife’ is and the message this ‘knife’ conveys.
-kd
I see your point, but again, it’s not an apt analogy. Lunging is (some would argue) a pretty universally accepted act of aggression, especially on a plane. Sitting quietly with a button does not.
Gilmore is not making the arguments that you are sarcastically making. Note he is not complaining about getting punished for playing “We Will Survive” too loud on a boombox, fighting with another passenger, or for lunging at anyone.
He wore a button, that, in the judgement of a flight attendant, was a threat to the emotional state of mind of the rest of the passengers. Judgement calls on what constitutes a “threat” to safety on flights occur every day, in the forms of drunk passengers, fights, etc. But until now, I have never heard of a judgement call based purely on “predicting” a panic based on a passenger’s dress.
Gilmore is not out to revoke all rules of safety and security…if you think he is, you’re not understanding his point.
Does Mr Gilmore believe an airplane captain should have absolute authority for what happens on his plane, or not? If the captain is required (by aviation law, contract of employment etc.) to make decisions, surely they have to be accepted by passengers even if wrong.
The argument about freedom of speech is very shaky. Even if Mr Gilmore has a guaranteed right to freedom of speech sitting in a plane on the runway in the US, he certainly does not have it in international airspace, which is where he would have been a few hours later.
Or does Mr Gilmore believe the captain did not have the authority to act as he did? If so, who does he think should be the arbiter when a captain’s demand conflicts with a passenger’s wishes? In whose judgement is an issue one of “safety or security” if not the captain’s? From what Mr Gilmore has said, he believes it was for him (Mr Gilmore) to decide.
What has decided this issue for me is that Mr Gilmore has been very selective in his quoting from BA’s conditions of carriage to support his case. He quotes “they can refuse passage � if you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security” but conveniently omits the part where it says: “if one or more of the following has happened or we reasonably believe may happen”. In other words, it is sufficient for the crew to believe that he might refuse to obey instructions relating to safety or security.
When someone quotes selectively, I immediately become suspicious of their motives and their case. Always check.
Julian — it’s that exact part: “the following has happened or we reasonably believe may happen” is what bothers me.
I think that essentially, people are arguing that due to the security climate today, to err on the side of safety when you definite “reasonable” in the above sentence is a good idea. The way I see it, Gilmore’s simple point is not so much that he got kicked from the plane…but how arbitrary the decision was to ask him to remove his button, which led to the ejecting.
It should be enough to remind people of what we have seen in these threads.
We have seen wearing a button saying “suspected terrorist” compared to trying to stab at someone with a knife, carrying explosives onto a plane, (in the other thread) symbolic hijacking, an “I support the terrorists” statement and a sick joke laughing at murdered english children.
Distinctions collapse. One is able to read anything into anything else.
Remind me again: where does the threat of anarchy lay and who are the defenders of law and order?
Ah, Steven…you fell for it. I never compared it to stabbing someone…that was your elaboration, and assumption.
Just as someone might have misinterpreted Mr. Gilmore’s button and panicked, several here have legitimized a similar reaction at the thought of being lunged at by my prop knife. Why should I be prejudiced by their assumptions about my knife? You don’t want Mr. Gilmore judged on assumptions others might make about his button.
Julian’s quote seals the argument for me. The fact that Mr. Gilmore refused a request to remove the button makes it reasonable to assume he may refuse further requests in the future. He’s put his judgment before that of the pilot and flight crew, and I would not feel safe flying with him sitting next to me. If he doesn’t follow the request of the flight crew to put away his copy of Das Kapital during a bout of turbulence, and someone loses an eye, it won’t have anything to do with free speech or terrorism, it’ll be about ego.
-kd
Karl — my point is not that Gilmore was ejected. He should have been, in my opinion. But I don’t think the request to remove the button should have been made in the first place. I have seen drunk businessmen pose more of a threat to the sanity of the cabin than some silly political button.
My interest here has always been the insane notion that without any words of complaint from other passengers, a flight attendant can request him to remove the button on the basis of predicting the potential emotional reaction of all (or even *one*) of the other passengers towards a button he is wearing.
I say if you have a list of things I can’t wear, read, or watch in silence (even a vague one) then publish it, and I’ll do it. If you don’t, then zip it until you get that list. I’ll concede to have my travel plans depend on a real and explicit policy of flight travel, not in the aribitrary imagination of a freaked-out flight attendant who twitches every time a non-dairy creamer is popped open.
Hell…I’ll ship all my stuff freight, bring no carry-ons, and wear a long green dress if they thought it was good for security. Just don’t be inconsistent, based on how the crew’s mood is. I’ll fly Virgin, where they apparently can tell real threats from fantasy ones.
Wrong answer, try again. The Bill of Rights was intended to merely recognize human rights, not to grant them. A lot of people two centuries ago argued against having a Bill of Rights, for fear that precisely this misconception would arise. When the legal system does not recognize this right, that’s all the more reason for civil disobedience.
Also, I’d like to point out that it is perfectly legal to shout “Fire” in a crowded theatre when there is, in fact, a fire. Gilmore, like all airline passengers, really is a “suspected terrorist,” so even by this overwrought analogy, his actions are valid.
What is so demoralizing about debates like these is the way in which people develop increasingly contorted what-if scenarios to try to “prove” something, each one more contrived than the previous one. One doesn’t argue from exceptions and exceptions don’t invalidate all rules and norms.
Ultimately it is a question of what is reasonable. You will no doubt ask “who are you to define what is reasonable”, so I’ll state it loosely as “what is the typical response of a typical person in a given situation”.
Why do I believe that you should be “prejudiced by my assumptions about the knife” but that assumptions should not be made about gilmore and his button?
Simply because one set of assumptions is reasonable and the other isn’t. The fact that either assumption may, in some bizarre contrived scenario, be false doesn’t prove anything about the reasonableness of an assumption.
To take another contrived example, we make assumptions when we hear a voice about whether we are hearing a male or female voice(for example male voices are deeper). Sure we could come up with scenarios(what-if the person is a transexual, what if the woman is a testosterone taking weight lifter who can bench press 400 pounds and has a deep voice) to point up exceptions and ways in which assumptions can be in error. It simply doesn’t invalidate the fact that 99% of the time we can accurately predict(make assumptions about) whether a voice is male or female. The rare strange exception doesn’t prove anything.
If someone is brandishing a realistic looking knife and moving toward me in a menacing way, I am going to assume he intends me immediate harm, until I have reason to believe otherwise. Nearly any other normal human being with basic brain functioning would. No not everyone would(a comatose patient, for example). This is irrelevant. The fact that I might be wrong and it might be a fake knife is also irrelevant.
It is NOT reasonable to assume that a non-violent man, sitting calmly in a seat with a button on his lapel amongst other passengers also sitting calmly in their seats, is an immediate threat.
I want to make clear that I understand that the crew has the authority to do what they did.
The problem we are focusing on is the way authority can become perverse and abusive when this reasonableness disappears.
Is this case a sign that american civilization has collapsed? Of course not. It must be seen within the context of social trends, laws like the patriot act(which has striking similarities to previous sedition acts), the concept of being in a state of vague, undefined, unlimited, perpetual war, the doctrine of aggressive preemptive action against perceived threats, etc.
It is just one example of the way the obsession with eliminating all risk is perverting perceptions. The instinctual responses produced by fear have a place, but it is deadly to our way of life for fear to become the foundation of day to day policy.
Steven….very, very well said.
Regarding the ACLU suits: the denial of a motion to dismiss does not necessaily mean that “the court thinks there is a real injury to these peoples’ rights.” Rather, it means that the court found that the plaintiffs stated a claim for which relief might be granted as a matter of law. Although this might suggest an opinion on the merits of the allegations, it need not. A motion to dismiss is the proper way of testing the legal sufficiency of an allegation. Having determined that dismissal “as a matter of law” is inappropriate, the court will now consider the facts alleged by the plaintiffs. Only then will it determine whether there is an actual injury to the plaintiffs’ rights.
I am censoring my reply, because it’s just not worth it :-(.
John Gillmore: Winner of the 2003 Elizabeth Wurtzel Empathy Award
Some of us had very strong emotional reactions to 9/11, knew people who were killed, smelled the smoke directly, and still think John Gilmore’s comments are right. It’s a shame that the memory of those poor people is being used to further agendas that solve nothing, create no safer environment, and merely add power to the government while hemming in the rights of citizens. I grieved that day, but I don’t let that blind me to reality now. Now is when we especially have to be aware of our rights, for so many are resorting to emotionalism instead of logic and common sense.
I thought this thread was misfiled under “heroes”, but on closer inspection I did manage to find some. Kudos to Seth Finkelstein, Richard Bennett, and Floyd McWilliams. Well thought out, to the point comments. I’ve just added all three of you gentlemen to my blogroll.
These three guys make some posts on a weblog, and that qualifies them to be ‘heroes’? Good writers, okay–but ‘heroes’?
Does the term ‘hero’, post-9/11, have any meaning other than ‘on the right side’? Is it now nothing but an ideological grace note?
Hey, I was just going by the category Lawrence filed this under. Lucky for them it wasn’t “Old Stuff” or something like that.
Tim — rock on!
here you are, Tim….here’s some good Richard Bennett quotes for you to put on your blog to help illustrate how well his points are “thought out”:
Here’s where he somehow wants to argue that rape’s affect on men are somehow worse than on women:
“Rape is a funny example of the victimization of women, when you consider the daily routine in men’s prisons.” — Tue, Jun 11, 2002
Love this one:
“And yes, only retards disagree with me;” — June 6, 2003 01:46 PM
Who could forget this classic hit, where he throws some good ‘ole “threatened sexuality” stuff:
“Like Carole Migden, the author of this bill is a member of the Assembly’s lesbian militia.”
— referring to Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles…Apr 06, 2002
And for those not impressed yet by his eloquence and insight, what collection could be complete without a quote from his blog where he blames John Walker’s parents for his actions, and makes perceptive remarks about a woman he doesn’t know (Walker’s mother):
“His mother is equally nutty, some sort of born-again Buddhist vegetarian with her head up her ass with multiculturalism and moral relativism.” — Thu, Jul 25, 2002
So yes, Tim…please…expound to others the gospel of Mr. Bennett! Remember, folks, it’s only $3500 and 65 signatures, and you too can have a genius behind the wheel!
Tom,
Thanks for the �old stuff� chuckle. I appreciate your point–even if I wouldn�t make the same word choice–and your dropping a nice note on my weblog�s comments. My next post will be �Why I Stopped Weblogging, and Why I Started Up Again�–or maybe I�ll milk it for two posts.
The word �hero� has gotten to be a hot button for me. People apply it to broad classes–�All policemen are heroes�–when common sense would tell them that policemen as a class, like all people, vary in their heroism. Some cops are creeps similar to but worse than the people they arrest.
(I have a particular case in mind, a small-town drug cop from back home in Arkansaw.
(I forget if he�s been convicted of rape and awaiting charges on selling Ecstasy or vice-versa, but they just dismissed charges against someone against whom he�d caused his drug dog to falsely signal–when he�d hit the side of the car with his hand, the dog would �find drugs�.
(That ex-cop is many things, but hero is not one of them.)
A good friend, recently deceased, was a Marine colonel who saw much fighting in both Korea and Vietnam. We were talking about similar matters, and he allowed as how he�d been acquainted with four Medal of Honor recipients–two of whom he felt were men of very poor character.
I�m not sure whether one would say that only two of those four men were heroes, or that all four were heroes but that being a hero isn�t everything–I think I�d take the second tack and class heroism as a morally neutral virtue, which can just as easily serve good as it can evil.
To the anonymous poster just above me:
I agree that much of what Richard says is repugnant, but I�m not sure it�s germane to this discussion, except where he�s brought it in.
Your first example is poorly chosen–prison rape is one of America�s filthiest secrets, and I sympathize with its victims.
Richard doesn�t present that point particularly well, and he uses it, in my opinion, to bash on women who are raped, which is, as I say above, repugnant. Still, being the left-wing secular humanist Pollyanna that I am, I appreciate signs of compassion in anyone.
Devil�s Advocate is not my favorite role,
John A
Regarding the experience of Bruce K. Gagnon, I would be interested in a legal opinion with respect to the power of the police to even temporarily detain someone when no actual crime has been committed, so it can’t just be on suspicion of having committed a crime. To what other extent can one be detained and questioned when there has yet been no crime? What recourse would Gagnon have had if he had wished to make an issue of it?
Herb
Re: prison rape, the point is that male rapes outnumber female rapes, not that either is more heart-wrenching than the other. If we were honest about it, we would have to admit that rape is more a men’s issue than a women’s issue.
Not PC to say these things? I plead guilty.
There really isn’t any comparison.
Prison rape, whether directed against males or females, is state-sponsored crime. Other rapes (in America, at least) are not.
Apples and oranges, and every one of ’em rotten.
I’m unsurprised that Richard now wants us to say that, since the number of male rapes (according to Richard, and I’m doubtful its true, even given our barbarously large prison population) is greater than the number of female rapes, rape is a male issue, not a female issue.
What I expect the figures Richard isn’t citing would show, once one got under their covers, is that the number of male rape victims is relatively small and that they are repeatedly raped, whereas the number of female victims is large and that rape is usually a one-time occurence.
That says there are two different problems, with these major differences:
Men get raped (usually) because they’ve been imprisoned in an institution where the authorities turn a blind eye to sexual assault in order to appease the most violent and dangerous prisoners at the expense of the others.
Women, on the other hand, get raped in office buildings, homes, parking garages, wherever–just going about their daily business.
There are solutions to prison rape of men. I don’t know of any for violent rape of women in the free world.
And here’s the nub:
Prison rape threatens only a small group of men. Rape in the free world threatens pretty much all women.
In other words: It’s different.
Given that men can now be thrown in prison without charges or access to an attorney, I’d say prison rape threatens all men.
And I thought in the begining that Michael Moore was very much reaching with his seemingly too simple premise behind Bowling for Columbine.
You – every single one of you reading this – have an overwhelmingly higher chance of dying by being struck with lightning on a sunny day with green shoes on wearing a purple hat – than dying in the next terrorist attack on American soil… Which will come. I hesitate to mention your chance of dying while driving to work tomorrow morning, etc, etc, etc.
Yet terrorism is the reason a person was forced off an airplane on American soil into waiting “security” for what *used* to be legally protected speech in the form of a political statement worn on their sleeve? Or the reason Indians (and any dark skinned person displaying too much interest in something, uh, interesting) are targeted for demeaning and embarrassing persecution and interrogation? Or any of the hundreds of other horrid things that are happening to “supposedly free”, but more important *innocent*, average Americans and non-Americans in the United States of America post 9/11?
Yet people here are defending to the teeth a commercial airline’s assault on one of our basic freedoms that strikes at the very core of our country in this case. It simply more than amazes me.
Indeed, what BA did was a complete disregard and assault that strikes at the very core of why you are the Americans you are today and how you got here. What John was wearing is/was called protected speech for a reason – it *requires* protection, even more in times of “crisis mode” because such speech is the core of the foundation that built what we are! Its not called “convenient” speech, “comfortable” speech or “agreeable” speech… Its called “protected” speech – or it used to be. Its speech that *must* be protected even when you adamantly disagree with it… *Specially* when you adamantly disagree with it. What John wore wasn’t cause for panic like yelling fire in a theater – it was a very simple and very poignant two word phrase meant to make people think… I guarantee three years ago such speech as this would have easily won in a court of law. It was the best kind of protected speech – speech that made one think.
Fear. Irrational and unmitigated fear. Its destroying (and being used to destroy) the foundation of our beloved republic. And worse, it has been ingrained so deeply the last twenty five years that many don’t even see it happening around them.
I get the extreme feeling that “dying for your country/beliefs” is a great line for a movie these days, but in the reality of too many Americans is something to personally avoid at *any* cost today – specially when it *only* costs our basic rights and freedoms as fought for by our founders and the many who have died in its name throughout our past. On 9/11, 2,800+ innocent civilians died because of the country they lived in, if not by choice. I was friends with two of them and miss them terribly. But are you aware that 3,571 (mostly) innocent civilians died in traffic accidents on our US highways and streets – *last month* alone? And that many will again this month… And next month. And every month of every year as far as they eye can see.
I promise you, I’m not belittling 9/11 in the least – far from it. I’m simply putting it in perspective… At the very, very least they died for something that means *so much more* than a traffic accident. 9/11 was an extremely sad day for our country and required/s a lot of thought and action on how to try and prevent it in the future. We must *fight* to accomplish this, however, without destroying what makes us what we are to begin with! That last part seems to be forgotten by too many just about everywhere I go these days.
My apologies to Michael Moore for doubting his premise. The more I look at many US citizen reactions and arguments post 9/11 after seeing Bowling for Columbine (particularly surprising when viewing a site such as this), the more I absolutely agree.
And I Fear for my country.
What we can be certain of, all you who would ‘give up essential liberties to purchase temporary safety’ is that the people who are willing to do things such as drive airplanes into tall buildings are going to go to their diabolical work wearing suits and ties, looking as utterly inconspicuous as possible. I.e., if your safety depends on you spotting the terrorist by the button he’s wearing–you’re dead (on several levels) and just don’t know it.
have you considered going BARBARIAN?
If someone is brandishing a realistic looking knife and moving toward me in a menacing way, I am going to assume he intends me immediate harm, until I have reason to believe otherwise. Nearly any other normal human being with basic brain functioning would. No not everyone would(a comatose patient, for example). This is irrelevant. The fact that I might be wrong and it might be a fake knife is also irrelevant.
he fact that Mr. Gilmore refused a request to remove the button makes it reasonable to assume he may refuse further requests in the future. He’s put his judgment before that of the pilot and flight crew, and I would not feel safe flying with him sitting next to me. If he doesn’t follow the request of the flight crew to put away his copy of Das Kapital during a bout of turbulence, and someone loses an eye, it won’t have anything to do with free speech or terrorism, it’ll be about ego.
if you aare looking for the full version go to rapidshare search
I completely agree with all that here is told
“So you can find the information on it on my search resource
http://fileshunt.com“