is Iran more free than Australia?

[winterbadger]

A deliberately provocative suggestion, but one could understand thinking that from today's headlines.

Flight ban for anti-Bush T-shirt

A passenger barred from a Qantas airlines flight for wearing a T-shirt depicting US President George Bush as a terrorist has threatened legal action. ... The T-shift features an image of President George W Bush, along with the slogan "World's Number One Terrorist". ... A Qantas spokesman defended the airline's decision, saying: "Whether made verbally or on a T-shirt, comments with the potential to offend other customers or threaten the security of a Qantas group aircraft will not be tolerated". [How does a shirt 'threaten the security of an aircraft'?]

Iranian cleric attacks president

Senior Iranian dissident cleric, Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, has attacked President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over nuclear issues and the economy. ... The grand ayatollah complained that people kept on shouting slogans about nuclear rights, but he asked: "Don't we have other rights too?"

It was a pointed reference to concerns about diminishing freedom of speech in Iran under Mr Ahmadinejad.

Comments

[candlelight1228.livejournal.com]

But where does one draw the line? I was just having a similar conversation with a friend for the last week over LJ about a completely different topic. In so many of these cases, the lines are getting blurred so one no longer knows what to do. I mean it's like the saying, "We're dammed if we do and we're dammed if we don't."

[winterbadger]

I'm not sure I understand. What line do you feel is being blurred?

[candlelight1228.livejournal.com]

Unless I read the articles wrong it is my understanding a guy was trying to board a flight in Australia with a "Bush is a terrorist" shirt on. He was promptly told he couldn't. He complained about freedom of speech. The airline said that the shirt might offend thier passengers and be a problem in the air.

I can see both sides of the argument but here's the problem. Quantas as a business has to make money or they are out of business. As a future business owner myself I completely understand thier desire to protect thier interests. The last thing they need is bad publicity because a fight erupted while they were in air between this guy and another passenger over the shirt. They need to protect thier other passengers whom may not care one way or the other about the shirt.

However, then you have this other guy who feels his rights are being taken by not being allowed to wear the shirt. On some level I think he's just looking for publicity and his 15 minutes of fame. On the other though he has a point. Why can't he wear the shirt? Why is everyone else so sensitive? Fact is few people have a sense of humor or tolerance for viewpoints other than thier own. This creates a problem and begins to blur the line between what is ok and what isn't.

In the case of Quantas, I think it was probably pretty smart of them to protect thier interests and thier passengers. You just never know whom might be on the flight with you and where thier head is.

[winterbadger]

But where does it say people have a right not to be offended? The Qantas argument is that they are afraid that Person B would react badly to what Person A is wearing; but isn't that the responsibility of Person B? Isn't the onus on Qantas to be sure that Person B doesn't get out of line, not to tell Person A that because someone else might do something bad, he can't wear the clothes he chooses to?

Maybe Muslim people make me nervous, because so many of them blow people up. Or maybe I should be more general and say Muslim-looking people--anyone with a turban is a Muslim, right? Should Qantas tell people that they can't get on its flights because they "look wrong"? Plenty of people find Black people make them uncomfortable; maybe Black people should be told they can't fly on airlines, or can only sit in a section of the airplane set aside for Black people.

Qantas is a private carrier, yes, but they are making use of public resources (airways and airports) to do business. If they wish to decide that people whose politics they or other passengers may dislike are not welcome on their flights, that's entirely up to them. They should feel free to make that choice. But in that case I would prefer that my national government refuse them the priviledge of flying through our airspace or landing at any of our airports. And I will certainly be encouraging anyone I know and any corporations I do business with or hold stock in to boycott Qantas.

And if Qantas wants to deny people seats based on what they think and say, let's not pretend it's a safety issue. The only safety issue is the person who gets up and hits someone because they don't like what they are wearing (or what they look like, or what gender or sexual orientation they have), not the person who gets hit.

[candlelight1228.livejournal.com]

Hold it! If you are going to make that argument, who says it should even be Quantas' responsibility to protect thier passengers from people who want to go around "looking wrong"? What ever happened to personal responsbility? That's what I am wondering in this whole debate and all others I have had similar to it. Why must we as a society now point fingers at everyone else and say it's their fault, they are intruding my freedom of speech!? I mean honestly, we call ourselves a tolerant society and then we turn our backs and say, "Well he said, she said, so I am offended!" Give me a break!

I agree that people should wear what they want to wear but then are we going to be a "tolerant" society and take the blame for our own actions or are we going to point fingers like a bunch of kids? When everyone decides what the answer is then we can go around about rights.

[winterbadger]

who says it should even be Quantas' responsibility to protect thier passengers from people who want to go around "looking wrong"?

Well, I was attempting to take Qantas's arugment to its absurd conclusion. Of course it's not Qantas's responsibility *or* their right to "protect" their customers from being offended. That's just my point, no one has a right not to be offended. But Qantas is saying that it needs to keep its passengers from being upset. IMO that's BS. Its passengers need to get over themselves.

Why must we as a society now point fingers at everyone else and say it's their fault, they are intruding my freedom of speech!?

Because some people (call them Group 1) want to prevent other people (Group 2) from saying things because Group 1 doesn't want to allow people to think or say those things. Guess what, Group 1, you don't have the right to stop people saying or thinking anything. There are legitimate limits to free spech that can be justified on the grounds of safety (the classic "no shouting 'fire' in a crowded place unless there really is a fire"), but those limits don't extend to cutting off free experession just because someone doesn't *like* what they hear, which is what Qanatas is doing.

I agree that people should wear what they want to wear but then are we going to be a "tolerant" society and take the blame for our own actions...

Our own actions, or someone else's? If I wear an "I hate Presdient Bush" shirt, that does not entitle someone who likes President Bush to hit me. They can ignore me, or glare at me, or come up and tell me why they think I'm wrong. But if they hit me, that isn't *my* action causing the assault, it's *their* choosing to react to an opinion by employing unlawful violence.

[candlelight1228.livejournal.com]

(Who is that in your icon?)

It is within Quantas right to ban the passenger from boarding the flight. Public space or not the passenger paid for the service and agreed with that payment to follow the rules of the airline. Secondly, IF anything were to happen that caused the flight to be grounded or have an accident (to take it to the extreme as you did), guess who is going to get sued? Do you honestly think it will be the guy wearing the shirt? I don't think so. As a person who plans to start a business this year these are the kinds of things I will also have to think about.

We have to draw the line somewhere and this guy despite it being his right to wear the shirt was in the wrong to think he could do it on an airline.

I have more to say but I need to get to school so I will pick this back up later.

[winterbadger]

The icon is the late John Spencer as Leo McGarry in The West Wing.

Public space or not the passenger paid for the service and agreed with that payment to follow the rules of the airline.

Carriers using public routes, public services (like air controllers), and publicly-provided airports do not have the right to deny service to someone because they do not like his political views. I seriously doubt anything in the contract that accompanied his purchase of the ticket asserted that they do, and I'm sure if it did that it would be ruled as an unenforceable contract if it did.

Secondly, IF anything were to happen that caused the flight to be grounded or have an accident (to take it to the extreme as you did), guess who is going to get sued? Do you honestly think it will be the guy wearing the shirt? I don't think so.

How will his wearing a shirt cause an accident? It won't. If someone causes a disturbance because they don't like his shirt, and that forces the airline to delay or cancel the flight, then I imagine that the person causing the disturbance will be arrested and charged with a crime. And if the airline is sued (dubious but possible), they will point to the person WHO CAUSED THE DISTURBANCE and to flight regulations that prohibit them from taking off while police are in the process of arresting someone for assault, and the suit will be dismissed.

As a person who plans to start a business this year these are the kinds of things I will also have to think about.

Best of luck to you. But if you plan on refusing service to customers based on their personal and political beliefs, then I have to say I don't think your business will be very successful, and it may find itself in legal trouble if you use public funds or resources.

We have to draw the line somewhere and this guy despite it being his right to wear the shirt was in the wrong to think he could do it on an airline.

Why, because we all have rights except on airplanes? Again, there needs to be a legitimate and demonstrable safety concern to override the right of free speech, and there is certainly none here.

[candlelight1228.livejournal.com]

I had no plan to respond to this tonight but something has gone arwy in this conversation and it has me upset enough to not be able to sleep. Let's step back and try this again.

--------------------------------------

Let's start by getting something straight here. I don't care for Bush either but the current politcal climate is bizarre (for lack of a better word) and no one knows what anyone else will do. With this in mind, you have a guy trying to board a flight with a "Bush is a terrorist" shirt on. Whether we agree with the guy or not is not the issue here. The issue is what is the right thing to do for Quantas. Am I right in asking this?

If I am right in asking this, then add to that climate one where few people take responsibility for thier own actions. Isn't this the current state of affairs?

If that is the case, then if someone wants to start a fight and disrupt a flight (in mid air - that's what I was assuming) then you have a problem. How then does the airline deal with this potential threat to the safety of thier passengers? Is thier staff euipped and ready to handle the situation? And what exactly happens when everyone gets off the flight and someone has been hurt or the person who started the whole incident cries foul and says his rights was infringed upon and he was caused emotional distress because of this guy's shirt? And thus he sues?

It sounds like utter BS and make no mistake about it, it is! However, when you have people like the woman suing McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on herself and winning, then you begin to create an enviroment where people look for ways to abdicate thier responsbility. Another beautiful example is about a guy who was robbed. A senior walking the streets was robbed and beaten by some criminal. He's still paying hospital bills to this day. The criminal however was injured when he was escaping through a backyard of someone else and had sued them for millions. He's a millionaire today. Is there something wrong there? Yes.

This stupid sue happy culture we are creating is what worries me, when starting my own business. Not some guy wearing a shirt. (Do not ever put words in my mouth that I never said again!) I am concerned about our rights as much as the next guy but the question I am asking here that you seem to be missing is where in the world do we draw the line? You are saying that this guy would be hauled off to prision. Maybe but then who wins when he sues? When criminals are winning legal battles they should have lost, where is that line you claim can be so easily drawn?

[winterbadger]

(Do not ever put words in my mouth that I never said again!)

I put no words in your mouth.

And what exactly happens when everyone gets off the flight and someone has been hurt or the person who started the whole incident cries foul and says his rights was infringed upon and he was caused emotional distress because of this guy's shirt? And thus he sues?

He gets laughed out of court. *He* started the fight. He has no right not to be upset by someone else's opinion. His rights were not infringed on. He has no right to attack someone.

You advocate giving in to nonsense, letting the threat of litigation take the place of actual litigation. That way lies madness. It is also the way to make sure that people *continue* to abuse the system. If threatenng to sue someone is as effective as actually doing it, then everyone will threaten to sue over nothing.

Besides, research most of those cases of "the burglar broke his leg over my couch and is suing me" stories and you'll find they are nonsense, made up scare stories. Juries generally have a bit more sense than people give them credit for.

I am concerned about our rights as much as the next guy ...

No, I don't think you are. Or at least that puts the bar for the other guy, whoever he is, pretty low. You are advocating that the threat of a baseless lawsuit that will almost certainly be dismissed is grounds for stripping every citizen of their right to free speech. That doesn't sound to me like being concerned with free speech at all.

where in the world do we draw the line?

We draw the line at the point where an inalienable right (free speech) is being given second place to the nonexistent right not to be offended.

If you don't like the litigiousness of our society (and I certainly don't either), then don't encourage it by accepting that anyone who threatens to sue needs to be accomodated.

[candlelight1228.livejournal.com]

Yes you did - You said....If I discriminated against someone in my business because I didn't like something they wore then I could expect to get sued. Almost exact quote. I NEVER said I would do that!

I am not advocating giving into nonsense. I am saying that people are doing that already! The last thing I want is for the world to continue to give into nonsense as you put it.

The criminal story came from a crediable source but in order to show that to you it would take weeks to dig it back up.

You are advocating that the threat of a baseless lawsuit that will almost certainly be dismissed is grounds for stripping every citizen of their right to free speech. That doesn't sound to me like being concerned with free speech at all.

I didn't say that! Where is it I said that?

If you don't like the litigiousness of our society (and I certainly don't either), then don't encourage it by accepting that anyone who threatens to sue needs to be accomodated.

I never did. I am saying that is what I see going wrong with the society. I never said I accepted it. What makes you say I said I accepted it!?

[winterbadger]

I put no words in your mouth. You said you thought Qantas was right to ban the passenger because of his opinions, on the grounds that it could hurt their business if they did not, that someone might sue them if someone objecting to his opinions caused a delay or a cancellation of flight or caused someoen to be injured.

I am not advocating giving into nonsense. I am saying that people are doing that already! The last thing I want is for the world to continue to give into nonsense as you put it.

But by advocating for Qantas's position, that is exactly what you are doing.

I never said I accepted it.

To quote you:

"Quantas as a business has to make money or they are out of business. As a future business owner myself I completely understand thier desire to protect thier interests. The last thing they need is bad publicity because a fight erupted while they were in air between this guy and another passenger over the shirt. They need to protect thier other passengers whom may not care one way or the other about the shirt."

and "We have to draw the line somewhere and this guy despite it being his right to wear the shirt was in the wrong to think he could do it on an airline."

You are accepting Qantas's argument that they have to "protect" their passengers from being exposed to other peoples' speech.

[winterbadger]

After reading your post on this same article in your LJ, I confess myself completely baffled as to what you truly believe about this event.

Do yout think people have the right to express their personal beliefs, as long as doing so does no (demonstrable, physical) harm to others?

Do you believe that people have the right to attack people whose beliefs they do not like?

Do you believe that individuals, businesses, or governments have the right to restrict other peoples' free speech for other than realistic, demonstrable safety reasons?

If I say something that you don't agree with, and you hit me, who is at fault? Me, for expressing an opinion you don't want to hear? or you, for hitting me?

[candlelight1228.livejournal.com]

You know... I am completely confused myself now! I think I am saying one thing and I guess it's coming out differently than I think I am saying it.

1) Yes

2) No

3) No

4) Me

The point as I see it, giving Quantas the benefit of the doubt (because I am an idealist), is that Quantas acted with the safety of the passengers in mind. (My business would probably never be in a similar position.) They may have reacted out of fear and perhaps made the wrong decision but I honestly believe they were thinking of the safety of those on thier planes.

[winterbadger]

OK, I feel far less confused now! I should have asked those clarifying questions sooner. :-)

I imagine Qantas probably were thinking about, not so much safety (sorry, I just don't buy that), as trying to prevent controversy which would make them look bad. However, I think their solution is morally bad, legally dubious, and in practical terms a disaster, because now they have far more negative press than (IMO) they would have gotten if they had just asked the guy to wear something else and dropped it when he said "No".

[candlelight1228.livejournal.com]

I agree; it was probably a bad decision on thier part. Alas, though unfortunate they now have to find a way out of this one.

Here's another one (http://news.aol.com/entertainment/movies/articles/_a/dakota-fanning-speaks-up-on-rape-scene/20070124065909990001) for you. This is what I meant by people being sensitive. This stuff happens everyday. I applaud the movie for trying to bring it to light and for Dakota showing wisdom & maturity beyond her years.

[candlelight1228.livejournal.com]

BTW, as an FYI, coming from someone who flies a lot, I hate the current enviroment. I hate that I can't carry onto flights a bottle of water. I have lost at least 2 bottles of water and almost a bottle of juice after a bit of a struggle with the security guys just so I could go back out and drink it down. It pisses me off to no end because I always have a bottle of water on me in case I get thirsty. As a student buying it at the airports is expensive so I don't care for that either. Personally, I feel that whole rule is just an attempt for people to make money, drive up prices (and fear, and and and and... However, again, where do you draw the line?

[winterbadger]

My impression is that the whole liquids thing was a reaction to the planned bombing of a flight using liquid or semi-liquid substances. Someoen in DHS said "OK, how are we going to convince people that we can prevent this happening in the future?" And they decided to just outright ban all liquid.

Of course, it's now gettign hedged and hedged and hedged. I imagine one of these days it will get entirely removed, but by then someone will have figured out how to make a bomb look like a book or a watch or a ham sandwich, and all those things will be banned as well.

I understand why it might feel like a money-making ploy but since there are waterfountains in most airports and free soft drinks on most flights (except budget ones :-), I really doubt that anyone went into that looking to make money.

I wouldn't mind BS like this if it really made anything safer. But I don't think it does; I think it just makes stupid people *feel* safer. And I'm fairly sure that's all it's supposed to do, which is annoying.

[candlelight1228.livejournal.com]

I get that but you have layovers still. And when some of us whom don't have as much money as others have to make a decision between whether we can drink or eat because we are no loner allowed to carry water with us... well I find that to be a problem.

Granted there are water fountains in airports but the water is crap. I like my filterd clean water, thank you.

Also, it worries me that they will, as you have already pointed out, get to the point of banning almost everything. I hate it already that I can't carry my makeup with me or my precious bottle of water and then if they go so far as to ban my computer or a book to read I think I will start taking trains and boats if I ever go anywhere.

It's ridiculous! Let's talk about that, if we are going to talk rights! ;)

[winterbadger]

Granted there are water fountains in airports but the water is crap. I like my filtered clean water, thank you.

*shrug* It isn't that bad, really, and--having worked in the water treatment industry in the past--I can assure you that despite what the people who make money selling you bottled water tell you, most commercial filtered water is not any "cleaner" than what comes out of the tap in most major urban areas in the First World. Usually what one pays for in bottled still water is (a) convenience (which one can get around by just buying a water bottle--security will not stop you for an empty water bottle) and (b) a fancy label. Sparkling water, yes, you have to buy that.

[candlelight1228.livejournal.com]

Maybe but I like the taste of Dasani and a few others. People tell me you can't taste water but if you drink enough of it you can. I remember when I was a kid going to my parents cabin in the mountains and the water would taste like Chlorine. We found out they put that in the water to cleanse it. I prefered bottled water since. And btw, I tend to just fill the water bottles with filtered water from the tap (we have a filtering system on it). But that's my point I can't walk into the airport with one of those. It just upsets me cause I am use to having certain freedoms from flying a lot before 9/11 and now all the new restrictions are a complete pain! Some of it I seriously wonder about....

[winterbadger]

I am, by the way, astonished that computers are still allowed on flights. DHS must be really 10% confident in their ability to detect actual explosive substances (C4, Semtex, etc.) because it's got to be terrifically easy to fit whatever electrical wiring and so on one needs for a detonator in a laptop and still have it function fine as a computer. Getting the explosive onto the plane is all that a suicide bomber needs to do to take out a major airliner, and that is too slight a challenge. Stopping a would-be bomber has to begin by identifying them and preventing them from reaching the plane, and that is a *very* tough job.

[candlelight1228.livejournal.com]

That may be true but my computer goes with me everywhere and I don't like letting it out of my site so I hope it never comes down to that.