is Iran more free than Australia?
Jan. 22nd, 2007 09:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerA 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-22 08:40 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-22 09:01 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 06:20 am (UTC)--------------------------------------
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?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 01:04 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 05:24 pm (UTC)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!?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 05:44 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 05:51 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 07:01 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 07:07 pm (UTC)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".
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 07:41 pm (UTC)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.