Topic: TSA Security Bullshit

[kermi3]

Arijit says he made it through the Transportation Security Administration’s standard screening routine without incident and that he was only questioned after arriving at his departure gate.   There, he says, a supervisor from Delta Airlines started inquiring about the clothing, and soon after Arijit was quickly interrogated by others. He writes that he was then surrounded by agents with both the TSA and a crew from the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, the law enforcement agency that patrols Western New York’s mass transit system.

...Arijit says he made it through the Transportation Security Administration’s standard screening routine without incident and that he was only questioned after arriving at his departure gate.

...

By the time his entire ordeal was over, Arijit and his wife were forced to rent a car and find a place to stay for the evening on their own — they were rebooked for a flight the following morning.
Not before being interrogated further, though, and this time by local law enforcement officers with the NFTA. Even after being booted, Arijit says that transit cops questioned him relentlessly, asking him about where he got his shirt and for details about his family.

That last paragraph is where I have a problem.

[Steve]

And it's rightfully illegal to yell FIRE in a crowded public space.  But that's not what he did Ober.  It was a sarcastic shirt mocking the TSA.  There was no threat on it at all on it. 

I didn't say he did anything illegal.  I also didn't say what he was wearing had a threat on it.  He didn't get arrested.  He got removed from a place of business by a private company.  They have every right to do so.  Just like any other business can ask you to leave their establishment if you make a scene.

In the world we live in, you don't fuck with people's feeling of safety or make fun of the people that are trying to keep you safe.  I really don't understand why you're defending the guy's actions or the pilot's response.  He has a responsibility to make everyone feel safe and if that is compromised, I feel it is completely within his right to do something about it.  You really have to ignore the shirt at this point and focus on the scene that was created as a result of his actions.

EXACTLY. Holy shit me and obes are on the same team.

[Steve]

Arijit says he made it through the Transportation Security Administration’s standard screening routine without incident and that he was only questioned after arriving at his departure gate.   There, he says, a supervisor from Delta Airlines started inquiring about the clothing, and soon after Arijit was quickly interrogated by others. He writes that he was then surrounded by agents with both the TSA and a crew from the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, the law enforcement agency that patrols Western New York’s mass transit system.

...Arijit says he made it through the Transportation Security Administration’s standard screening routine without incident and that he was only questioned after arriving at his departure gate.

...

By the time his entire ordeal was over, Arijit and his wife were forced to rent a car and find a place to stay for the evening on their own — they were rebooked for a flight the following morning.
Not before being interrogated further, though, and this time by local law enforcement officers with the NFTA. Even after being booted, Arijit says that transit cops questioned him relentlessly, asking him about where he got his shirt and for details about his family.

That last paragraph is where I have a problem.

Why? They have every right to establish the source the an background.

[kermi3]

So what Steve?  Plenty of people on a plane would be disturbed by my "I hate White People" shirt - and perhaps I would be asked to leave...but I shouldn't be detained by the cops for it.  Of course context matters with those shirts I listed before, and of course I wouldn't wear them to a clan rally or an abortion clinic without expecting repercussions...but those repercussions would be from private citizens or companies.  Not from the government repetitively detaining and questioning.

You are missing the point, the subject matter is everything. I hate white people doesn't make the masses fear bombs on the plane or a terrorist attack.

I'm not missing the point.  You're missing mine.  It might feel threatening if it's being worn buy a 300lb muscled black guy.  Like you said, context is everything.  But IMO the shirt CLEARLY wasn't a threat.  It was a ill conceived protest perhaps, but not a threat.  The problem comes when the government redetains him instead of the airline asking him to change his shirt and take the next flight.

[kermi3]

Why? They have every right to establish the source the an background.

CAUSE THEY ALREADY FUCKING DID IT ONCE!!!

[Steve]

So what Steve?  Plenty of people on a plane would be disturbed by my "I hate White People" shirt - and perhaps I would be asked to leave...but I shouldn't be detained by the cops for it.  Of course context matters with those shirts I listed before, and of course I wouldn't wear them to a clan rally or an abortion clinic without expecting repercussions...but those repercussions would be from private citizens or companies.  Not from the government repetitively detaining and questioning.

You are missing the point, the subject matter is everything. I hate white people doesn't make the masses fear bombs on the plane or a terrorist attack.

I'm not missing the point.  You're missing mine.  It might feel threatening if it's being worn buy a 300lb muscled black guy.  Like you said, context is everything.  But IMO the shirt CLEARLY wasn't a threat.  It was a ill conceived protest perhaps, but not a threat.  The problem comes when the government redetains him instead of the airline asking him to change his shirt and take the next flight.

No your wrong. This is the words BOMB and TERRORIST on a fucking AIRPLANE. None of your comparisons can be used here. That is a universal flag in every persons mind on any plane anywhere.

Why? They have every right to establish the source the an background.

CAUSE THEY ALREADY FUCKING DID IT ONCE!!!

So what? Mistakes happen, confidence in redundancy.

[kermi3]

What if my shirt hadn't criticized the government?  What if it said "Remember those who have been killed by terrorists and bombs on airplanes?"  Where's the line?  If they're redundant with him for a day? A week?  A year? 

What if he'd been a white guy named Phil instead of Arijit?  Would it be a problem then? 

[Steve]

What if my shirt hadn't criticized the government?  What if it said "Remember those who have been killed by terrorists and bombs on airplanes?"  Where's the line?  If they're redundant with him for a day? A week?  A year? 

What if he'd been a white guy named Phil instead of Arijit?  Would it be a problem then? 

Now i know your being thick. A memorial shirt is a completely different thing and you know that.

[kermi3]

No.  I don't.  I honestly don't see how the image on his shirt is a threat.  I see how it's sarcastically critical of the TSA, but the only thing threatening I see on it is that it has those words.

[JaWiB]

Kermi.  Freedom of speech does not mean that there won't be repercussions for your expressions.

Repercussions by private organizations and individuals, sure, but the NFTA and TSA are government agencies.

This whole thing is ridiculous anyway. People really think that a terrorist is going to wear a t-shirt that says "Terrist?" I'd argue that heightened security in airports doesn't actually make people feel safer, it makes people more likely to have these crazy reactions   

[Jake]

they could have asked him to turn his t-shirt inside out.  Thats what they did in my middle school when people wore offensive "eat my shorts" Bart Simpson t-shirts.

offtopic, but I remember in 5th grade, I was straight "off the boat" and so was my best friend at the time. He came to school one day in a second hand HOOOTERS tshirt. It just said hooters with the O's being the owl's eyes. Nothing else. He was sent home. It wasn't until highschool that I found out what that meant. lol

[kermi3]

HAHAHA....that's great.

[webwhy]

two quick comments:

1) As JaWib pointed out.  This is security theater. period.  It is only necessary to make the mouth breathers feel safe.  There's nothing more comforting to rural American masses who fly once a year than seeing a brown person getting the shake down at a security checkpoint.  Tax dollars at work...
2) It's hilarious for me to see gun nuts like steve perfectly willing to see the government trample all over the 1st, 4th and 5th amendements, which are MUCH more relavent to life in today's world than the 2nd.  I guess having your guns makes you feel safe from your government, but sadly that's not the case.

[Perspective]

2) It's hilarious for me to see gun nuts like steve perfectly willing to see the government trample all over the 1st, 4th and 5th amendements, which are MUCH more relavent to life in today's world than the 2nd.  I guess having your guns makes you feel safe from your government, but sadly that's not the case.

Yeah, my last post was a slightly more sarcastic variation of this. It actually is hilarious (as in, seriously laugh out loud funny) to see a gun advocate preach about how the founding fathers intended for them to have guns and how the country would fall apart if they didn't because it's part of the constitution... but then on another issue like free speech take a 180 degree turn and say "there needs to be practical limits on free speech"

[KnuckleBuckett]

Just so that it is clear.  I am not advocating limiting free speech.  Only that there are often consequences related to free speech.

I feel the same considering the right to bear arms.  Their use may have consequences be ready for them.

For Obes it would be the right to bare arms.