eroding freedom by NewOldBrownCoat

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

eroding freedom

POSTED BY: NEWOLDBROWNCOAT
UPDATED: Monday, October 2, 2006 03:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1971
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, September 29, 2006 5:40 AM

from CNN:

Quote:

A Wisconsin man named Bird who wrote "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on a plastic bag containing toiletries said he was detained at an airport security checkpoint for about 25 minutes before authorities concluded the statement was not a threat.
...
A TSA spokeswoman acknowledged a man was stopped, but likened the incident to cases in which people inappropriately joke about bombs. She said the man was "a little combative" and that he was detained only a few minutes.
...

the screener told him, "You can't write things like that."
...

The supervisor told Bird he had the right to express his opinions "out there" -- pointing outside the screening area -- but did not have the right "in here," Bird said.

I hardly know where to begin. Expression of a personal political opinion can be restricted at will by an untrained lowest level bureaucrat acting beyond the authority of his job. How long before someone wearing a " Sadam was not the problem" t-shirt; or an " I voted for Gore, it's not my fault" t-shirt; or or a "Hillary in '08" t-shirt , can be arrested at an airport; or outside a government office; or at a political rally?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 29, 2006 5:53 AM

ANTIMASON

honostly, i think the stage is being set as we speak for that kind of scenario; which is why the Patriot act and other anti-terrorist legistlation is so dangerous. its only a matter of time before anything regarded as anti-establishment will be considered terrorism, and citizens become terrorists

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 29, 2006 10:23 AM

CHRISISALL

Welcome to America, 2006, where it's almost 1984.

Really. Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 29, 2006 10:46 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Welcome to America, 2006, where it's almost 1984.

Really. Chrisisall

Chrisisall, please report to Miniluv!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 29, 2006 11:56 AM

HORNSLONGTX

Ponder for a minute the lengths poeple associated with this and other fansites have gone. Now consider what might happen if poeple did the same thing when stuff like this happens. It would stop. Your Congressman/woman works for you, your Senator works for you. The whole stinkin government system is paid for by you and they are supposed to be working for you. Send letters, call them, make petitions. If people put half the time and money that they put in to getting their favorite show back on air in to politics they would get more of the government they want and less of what they don't.

Oh yeah and one more thing VOTE!! for everything you can.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 29, 2006 2:52 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by hornslongtx:
Ponder for a minute the lengths poeple associated with this and other fansites have gone. Now consider what might happen if poeple did the same thing when stuff like this happens. It would stop.

Except that's not how it works. At first people let others get dragged off because they're the bad guys and we are scared of them and our government is just keeping us safe.

Then we're just too scared of our government to speak out ourselves...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:01 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Link to the entire article.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/28/idiot.baggie/index.html

Mr. Bird was looking for a confrontation, and got one. He still made his plane and got to keep his bag of cosmetics. Maybe next week he'll express his displeasure at something else by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 30, 2006 9:30 AM

SIMONWHO

Geezer is exactly right, it's only terrorists who want free speech so they can spread their evil; patriots shut up and do exactly as they're told and never criticise the government because that's unpatriotic and you're all terrorist lovers and hate freedom.

In conclusion: the government is always right and if you think differently, you should keep it to yourself or expect to be "detained" by security until you understand the truth.

God bless America!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 30, 2006 12:47 PM

DANFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Mr. Bird was looking for a confrontation... Maybe next week he'll express his displeasure at something else by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Geezer, first let me say that I enjoy almost every post you make. Even if I don't agree with them, they make me think.

That said, your comment in this post is one of those I just can't agree with. This is a slippery slope. Almost ANY opinion can be confrontational to someone. If hard core members of the NRA picket the Democratic National Convention, they are being confrontational... expressing a strong and somewhat controversial opinion at a location intended to spread the opinion broadly. If ALL they are doing is speaking, or carrying placards, should this make the picketers subject to detention, questioning, and background checks?

Change the players... pro-choice demonstrators at the Republican National Convention. Should we detain them because "they were looking for a confrontation, so by God let's satisfy 'em"?

And the implication that the detention was insignificant because he caught his plane seems specious to me. Is it legal to express an opinion or not? Is it legal to detain someone for non-violent, non-threatening, legal activity or not? Yes, you can express an opinion that does not risk life. No you cannot detain someone ONLY because you didn't like the opinion... at least you're not supposed to be able to.

And likening his expression to shouting "Fire" in a crowded place simply doesn't wash. Calling someone an idiot is clearly unlikely to cause a blind panic in a crowd. And in no dictionary is the word "idiot" synonymous with "I intend to kill him at the earliest convenient moment. Failing that, I'll kill everyone on the plane with me in a fit of frustration. Ignore me at your peril."

Compared to pro-gun owners, pro-choicers, pro-lifers, pro- or anti-anything, calling someone an idiot is small potatoes. EVEN IF the guy was looking for a confrontation, I believe the TSA officers blew it.

Just wanted to put these thoughts out there. Carry on, folks...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 8:49 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by danfan:
This is a slippery slope. Almost ANY opinion can be confrontational to someone. If hard core members of the NRA picket the Democratic National Convention, they are being confrontational... expressing a strong and somewhat controversial opinion at a location intended to spread the opinion broadly. If ALL they are doing is speaking, or carrying placards, should this make the picketers subject to detention, questioning, and background checks?

If they're outside the convention hall, they can picket. If they try to enter and do their protest inside the secured area, they'll be stopped, detained, possibly charged. If you try to run to the front door of the White House waving a sign saying "Bush Is An Idiot!", wanna bet you get stopped?

I suspect that the security screeners who stopped Mr. Bird figured anyone confrontational enough to write an insulting remark about the head of TSA where security was bound to see it might also be confrontational enough to cause trouble.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 9:38 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 3:24 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is OK? Or walking up to a policeman with a hand under your coat and yelling "I've got a gun and I'm gonna kill you"? Or jumping up out of your seat in an airliner an screaming "I've got a bomb and I'm going to blow you infidels up in the name of Allah"? Or being able to call the Black guy you work with a "nigger"?

"Freedom of Speech" does not justify or permit reckless endangerment, intimidation, or harrassment. Rights entail responsibilities. TSA personnel have to figure this out thousands of times a day, on the fly. You try it for a while, and then complain.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 3:51 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is OK? Or walking up to a policeman with a hand under your coat and yelling "I've got a gun and I'm gonna kill you"? Or jumping up out of your seat in an airliner an screaming "I've got a bomb and I'm going to blow you infidels up in the name of Allah"? Or being able to call the Black guy you work with a "nigger"?

"Freedom of Speech" does not justify or permit reckless endangerment, intimidation, or harrassment. Rights entail responsibilities. TSA personnel have to figure this out thousands of times a day, on the fly. You try it for a while, and then complain.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well, stated argument over this entire thread geezer. I thought this was just another 1st amendment invitational. It may have been, but seems you bought the bar.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 4:06 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Has anyone of these so called 'violations of freedom' resulted in any of these folks getting audited by the IRS ?

That was a fav tactic of anyone speaking out against the Clintons.

But that was different, I suppose, huh?

When you stop crying wolf, come join the rest of the party.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 4:43 PM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is OK? Or walking up to a policeman with a hand under your coat and yelling "I've got a gun and I'm gonna kill you"? Or jumping up out of your seat in an airliner an screaming "I've got a bomb and I'm going to blow you infidels up in the name of Allah"? Or being able to call the Black guy you work with a "nigger"?

"Freedom of Speech" does not justify or permit reckless endangerment, intimidation, or harrassment. Rights entail responsibilities. TSA personnel have to figure this out thousands of times a day, on the fly. You try it for a while, and then complain.

Nice straw man Geezer. Except each of these things you mention is a threat and the "confrontational message" was an opinion. Which government, even in the form of a low-level security wonk, is specifically forbidden to act against.

I used to respect your opinion and your arguments, but this one is so weak I suspect someone hacked your account.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Has anyone of these so called 'violations of freedom' resulted in any of these folks getting audited by the IRS ?

That was a fav tactic of anyone speaking out against the Clintons.

But that was different, I suppose, huh?

What it was is ancient history. Stop comparing the current administration to Clinton's. Raise the bar a little will you? If all you can say is Bush jr. is better than a sleazeball laywer from a state on the bottom rung of the educational ladder. Whoopdee-farking-doo! The president is supposed to represent the best and brightest of America, and here's a clue, shrub ain't even close.

What I really resent about the whole sorry, cluster fucked state of affairs of American politics since 9/11 is this; America is supposed to be the best. We're not supposed to be just a little better than the bad guys, we're supposed to be in a whole different league. We have let fear of some camel fucking backwards savages cow us and make us forget what America is all about.

You want to talk about dark days? How about right after Pearl Harbor? Everyone thought the Japanese were going to be landing on the west coast. Hitler was busy kicking England's ass all over the middle east and rolling up the Soviet army like it didn't exist. And we got sucker punched like some ignorant sod buster. Most of our fleet was sitting in the mud in a forward naval base and we had to figure out just how we were going to fight a war on two fronts, something which everyone who had tried to do had gotten their ass kicked over.

Don't even pretend to tell me Islamic militants pose a similar threat. And before someone trots out the tired old threat of terrorists getting their hand on a nuke and slipping it into our country, please, grow a pair of balls.

This is the United States. The ONLY country to have actually USED nukes. Not to mention there's more Americans in California and New York state than there is in the whole fucking middle east.

Now both sides of the aisle in Washington have conducted themselves like some crotch-grabbing, leg-humping drunks in a bar brawl. And I, for one, am sick of it. I'd like everyone of you, neo cons, liberals and moderates to get your head out of your ass, look at a little history and remember what you are supposed to be. Not some whiny little snot-nosed schoolchildren, but Americans. Stop screwing around, and screwing over the blue collars, white collars and anyone who's not a member of your country club.

And for God's sake somebody pick up the Constitution and wipe the mud off it.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 6:52 PM

SERGEANTX

Damn Hardware! say it loud!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 10:42 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Let me add a "HooRAH" of my own to that statement, Hardware.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 10:58 PM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I hardly know where to begin. Expression of a personal political opinion can be restricted at will by an untrained lowest level bureaucrat acting beyond the authority of his job. How long before someone wearing a " Sadam was not the problem" t-shirt; or an " I voted for Gore, it's not my fault" t-shirt; or or a "Hillary in '08" t-shirt , can be arrested at an airport; or outside a government office; or at a political rally?

Honestly, anyone wearing a "Hillary in '08" should be shot, not arrested. But your point still stands. And I think chrisisall said it best.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Welcome to America, 2006, where it's almost 1984.

The problem is is that fewer and fewer people are willing to stand up and tell the government 'No, you've gone too far". We keep making concessions with the same excuse 'well, that's not that bad'. It won't be long until all those small little changes add up to the grand ass raping that I believe we all may recieve in our lifetimes. The FAA restrictions on personal hygene items and electronics was and is atrocious, a blatant violation of our personal rights. Did America say anything against it? No. Because a majority of Americans would rather feel safe than have freedom. It's bad, and it's just going to get worse, unless we do something.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 1, 2006 11:04 PM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Holy crap Hardware. I don't think I could have said it better even if I wrote it myself (I have a problem with becoming confrontational). It's too bad there aren't more people that think like you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 12:41 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Expression of a personal political opinion can be restricted at will by an untrained lowest level bureaucrat acting beyond the authority of his job. How long before someone wearing a " Sadam was not the problem" t-shirt; or an " I voted for Gore, it's not my fault" t-shirt; or or a "Hillary in '08" t-shirt , can be arrested at an airport; or outside a government office; or at a political rally?

Wow!... I don't know where to start. Kind of busy now so I cannot really read the whole thread at this moment but I feel like I'm at home.

Unfortunately, the more important question is one that seems so implausable to the blindly "patriotic" who mindlessly have faith in our government and the "Patriot" act, no matter what rights they take away in the interest of national and personal securities, and our "safety" and all of those other feel good words, regardless of which hand of the Devil's is running the show, the (R)epuglican or the (L)iberal.

How long after they start arresting us for public displays of dissention will they start going on line and finding all such blog posts, such as this, and arresting us for even typing things like this... or even more scary, how long afterwards will it be before they just say "

it" and just shoot first and ask questions later like they did at Kent State.

Our forefathers never said freedom will be easy. We must be vigilant and perserviere. They knew that times like these would come and they gave us the Constitution to protect us from our own government's corruption... the very piece of paper that the current Administration is pissing all over right in front of our faces and then telling us that it's for our own good. Don't get me wrong... I'm a bipartisan hater... Things wouldn't be any better with a Democrat in office, maybe they would on the surface, but our Government is very ill and needs a vaccine. the Republicrats are so deep in bed with each other, and big business, and the unconstitutional Federal Reserve (which uncoincidentally, isn't even a US institution), that they sometimes forget which side of the lie they're supposed to be promoting.

I won't step 1,000 feet within an airport... espcially without using the buddy system. I'll probably never be heard from again. I have little doubt in my mind that my end will come at a tragic "accident" or a "mysterious" kidnapping one day.

Why do you think they let these people in the country in the first place? Just add American hating Islamic extremists on our soil, a bombing of a world famous landmark, pervasive technology, paranoia, and a million and one PC laws via lawsuits.... now mix it all in a large bowl of bullshit and you've got yourself a country full of scared people who are willing to get barcodes tatooed on them and follow any promised savior, just like the Germans did to Adolph Hitler.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 2:08 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Nice straw man Geezer. Except each of these things you mention is a threat and the "confrontational message" was an opinion. Which government, even in the form of a low-level security wonk, is specifically forbidden to act against.

Hardly a straw man. Rue seemed to be stating that freedom of speech was an absolute right. I disagreed, and provided examples.

As for Mr. Bird's incident, I have to believe that his message, plus his confrontational attitude, were considered a possible threat by the TSA screener. They took a few minutes to verify that he wasn't, and sent him on his way.

Using Occam's Razor, this is a much more likely scenario than "A secret memo has come from above telling all TSA employees to harrass passengers showing the wrong political leanings, and none of the tens of thousands of people who have seen it has blown the whistle". But the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' thing is so much more fun for you to play with, I guess.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 2, 2006 3:42 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

This might just be the hangover talking, but I think I would have to agree with Geezer that this is really a non-event.

Was this man's rights violated? Maybe. Perhaps probably. But this looks like an isolated incident where an overzealous, half witted, screener on a power trip took things several steps too far. It's highly unlikely that it is the policy of the TSA to harass travellers in this manner. I imagine the only person who is happy that this episode took place is Bird. His protest turned out to be a catastrophic success.

That being said, I can't see how this event is in any way similar to someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theater (unless, there is in fact a fire) or trying to crash the White House gates in protest. Bird had a legal right to be in the airport and he has the right to express himself in a way does not induce public panic.

I think a more comparable example might be that of peace activist Cindy Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Congressman Young (R-FL), who were removed from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing shirts that said, respectively, "2245 Dead. How many more?" and "Support the Troops. Defend our Freedom."

In that case charges against Sheehan were dropped (Young was not charged) and an apology was issued by the US attorney's office to both ladies, as they had a legal right to be in the gallery (tickets) and violated no laws or incited no panic with their statements. While the venue has changed, the circumstances seem to correspond.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE