Anti-war Protester Kicked Out?

[mweiss]

Many, many people misunderstand the 1st Amendment. It was never intended to protect your speech in the workplace. Your employer has every right to restrict your speech in the workplace in any and all respects. Your employer even has the right to restrict your speech in public.

What the 1st Amendment does is prohibit the United States government from restricting your speech. The 14th Amendment extends this prohibition to the States.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

You're over reaching a bit there. The framers of that constitution could not possibly have envisioned an airport terminal gate area, or an employer with 100,000 employees or more.

While that first amendment has been litigated to death, there is still much room for interpretation. That you suggest an employer has the right to reach out and extend it's work rules to an employee in the public arena (I'm assuming you mean while off duty) has many frightening connotations. It was like the days when employers were attempting to reach into employees private lives and dictate to them that if they smoked while off duty, they would be fired. Ruling after ruling found that employers can only dictate what an employee does while they are on the clock, and in order for an employer to extend that arm, they must pay the employee a commensurate wage for each hour they are away from the workplace as well. The employers backed down, yet the issue still remains largely unresolved, thanks to the likes of contract labor, and management that is without an hourly wage.

In this instance, if the woman’s actions were upsetting to other passengers in the gate/terminal area, then by all means AA would most likely not be chastised for showing the woman the exit. However, this isn’t what appears to have happened here. Her actions were offensive to an employee only. There were no reports of others in the area stating they were offended. The employee even misstated what it was the woman was carrying. One employee found it offensive, summoned authorities and had the woman ejected.

Someone has taken their sensitivity training way too far. AA has it’s employees to the point where they spy on each other just waiting for a word to be said that they can claim is “offensive†to them and have them fired. Its out of control, but just another way to thin a higher paid herd and replace it with a minimum wage one, slowly but surely.

The poster was not offensive, and even classifies as a piece of art. There are obviously hours and hours of tedious work in the original. It is art that makes a political statement. It was actually rather ingenious.

With the CIA director resigning, admitting that bad intelligence sent our military into a war that never should have taken place, causing the needless deaths of so many soldiers, then this poster not only isn’t offensive, but it’s timely, necessary, and a sad reminder of what happens when government jumps the gun.

Chances are, the employee who went into a snit over this poster is a republican kool-aid drinker and a fan of the bush who can’t see the truth because they are blinded by the smoke of a crumbling world trade center, which they refuse to see past.

 

[AgMedallion]

How would this woman going around to military recruits telling them they shouldn't join the Army and showing them a poster which, to most or all of them, is offensive, be any different than some bigot dressed in a KKK outfit going around the gate area handing out leaflets to black passengers with information on why blacks are inferior and/or should be segregated? You could call it his right to free speech, but American Airlines is in business to make a profit and they have a right not to have people (even if thy're paying customers) roaming around their gate area discouraging other customers from doing business with AA. Can customers travel in the nude or come on the plane reeking of you-name-the-extremely-foul-smelling-substance? Personally, I would feel very uncomfortable having such people approach me in the gate area (or anywhere for that matter). Where do the Corporations's (and customers) rights end and assorted "strange" people right's begin? Would that same woman have the right the go around the gate area shouting obsenities? After all, it's free speech and isn't anywhere near shouting fire in a crowded theater when there's no fire. You can argue the legal merits of such a case all you want, but most people would feel very uncomfortable having to travel on the same public conveyance with a person like that and their rights should be considered as well.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

most people would feel very uncomfortable having to travel on the same public conveyance with a person like that and their rights should be considered as well.

Thats when it becomes passenger "profiling" which is discouraged. Hell even AA ushers the arabs through security in full robe and head-rag just so they won't be accused of discriminatory profiling of arabs.

I don't think the woman did anything wrong. Its not like she had a captive audience (like for instance, an Iraqi prison camp or Gitmo) unlike the examples, anyone in that gate area was free to leave, or tell her they weren't interested.

Problem was, it appears that everyone she was talking to WAS interested . . . everyone except the gate agent who wasn't being addressed, overheard and saw what she was doing, and took offense because he did not exercise his right not to listen or watch, but instead stuck his nose in it and then cried "offensive material, it's upsetting our passengers!"

Anything anti-bush is considered offensive right now. Just ask Michael Moore.

Fahrenheit 9/11

 

[mweiss]

That you suggest an employer has the right to reach out and extend it's work rules to an employee in the public arena (I'm assuming you mean while off duty) has many frightening connotations.

It does. I'm not arguing that point. Many employers have given severance packages that are tied to a requirement that the recipient of such a package not speak disparagingly toward the employer. It's not pretty, but it's legal.

 

[AgMedallion]

Thats when it becomes passenger "profiling" which is discouraged. Hell even AA ushers the arabs through security in full robe and head-rag just so they won't be accused of discriminatory profiling of arabs.


. . . everyone except the gate agent who wasn't being addressed, overheard and saw what she was doing, and took offense because he did not exercise his right not to listen or watch, but instead stuck his nose in it and then cried "offensive material, it's upsetting our passengers!"


Fahrenheit 9/11

I don't think the woman did anything wrong. Its not like she had a captive audience (like for instance, an Iraqi prison camp or Gitmo) unlike the examples, anyone in that gate area was free to leave, or tell her they weren't interested.

So passengers waiting for their flight aren't a captive audience? They have to leave the area where their flight is leaving from, risk missing it or risk being the last to board, losing whatever overhead bin space that might have been available if they were able to board earlier, because of some obnoxious twit? I can just imagine what fun it would have ben on that flight if the woman had boarded. I'd have to assume that you'd be okay with the KKK example I gave? Screw the black (and other) passengers who might be extremely offended. If there are a group of holocaust survivors flying somewhere as a group and there's some neo-Nazi wearing a T-shirt or handing out pamphlets saying Hitler didn't kill enough Jews, that would be okay with you too? Whay is it that with liberal Democrats, the rights of victims always mean nothing? The perps are the only ones who count. If I start a religion which worships skunks and I wear a liberal amount of skunk "juice" on my person while traveling, then tough sh*t if the other passengers don't like it...it's my "freedom of religion" right? Soldiers who might be risking their lives weeks/months from now have to have some jackass telling them their possible sacrifices mean nothing? Is it okay with you if the woman spit on them too? Like the anti-war Jane Fonda types used to do to U.S. servicemen in the 60s/70s? I guess freedom to spit in the liberal's version of the constitution.


[/QUOTE]Problem was, it appears that everyone she was talking to WAS interested

That's not what the agent said. Or was he automatically lying because his politics don't agree with yours?

Anything anti-bush is considered offensive right now. Just ask Michael Moore.

Ahh yes, the DNC's Leni Riefenstahl. If the Republican's had a professional liar putting out that trash, you'd be blasting him/her.

 

[jimntx]

Not that I disbelieve you, but I'm curious if you have any links to decisions that back up that position.

Understand that just because the police have jurisdiction over the area doesn't make it government-controlled. If someone is trespassing on my property, I am not legally authorized to use deadly force to remove the person from the property in most states (Texas is an interesting exception). The police, however, in all states, have the authority to forcibly remove trespassers from my property, even if I am only the leaseholder.

Do you not remember the IAH vs. Hare Krishna decision? IAH is wholly owned by the city of Houston. The city used policemen to eject Hare Krishnas from the airport terminal using the argument that they were beggars, not a real religion.
(There was also an undercurrent of "we are a Christian nation and these people are heathens.") In court (Federal, as I remember) the HKs prevailed. The only point the city won was that the HKs were restricted to a booth in the main terminal and were not allowed to wander the terminal because they had been, in fact, restricting traffic flow to and from the planes. Also, remember in those days there was very little additional space in the gate areas.

Of course, then the professional Christians got bent out of shape because the result of restricting the HKs meant that they couldn't wander the terminals at will either.

 

[jetdryvr]

Wing,

So I have to agree with a previous poster. Since what the gate agent did goes against what you think is right he automatically is a republican, he lied, and some how we should all listen to a bunch of jibberish from some exteremist.

If she was in the walkway offering her material to anyone who wanted to look at it that is one thing, she was not she was pushing her material on people who did not want to see it, and bothering passengers. I think the agent did the right thing.

Does not matter what she was pushing once she starts to irritate other customers she needs to be asked to move on or leave. It appears that the situation got to the point that The airport police asked her to leave.

Why sould anyone give Micheal Moore the time of day most of his movie is not factual and based on his politacal agenda and not on the truth.

 

[mga707]

Do you not remember the IAH vs. Hare Krishna decision? IAH is wholly owned by the city of Houston. The city used policemen to eject Hare Krishnas from the airport terminal using the argument that they were beggars, not a real religion.

As far as the issue of airport solicitation goes, I am personally fond of the approach used by Robert Stack in "Airplane!"....

 

[orwell]

There is a major difference between distributing or displaying literature, which is a form of constitutionally protected expression, and violent application of physical force.

In the case of International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, involving the The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns and operates the Kennedy, La Guardia, and Newark airports, the United States Supreme Court held, in 1992, that a governmental airport authority may not constitutionally prohibit the distribution of literature in airport terminals because such a ban violated the First Amendment.

"The First Amendment is a limitation on government, not a grant of power. Its design is to prevent the government from controlling speech." - Justice Kennedy

Before you accuse the Justices in the majority of being liberal, the lead per curiam opinion was written entirely by Republican (i.e. Nixon, Ford, Reagan and G.H.W. Bush) appointees.

Then I don't understand how some neighborhoods have been able to outlaw leafletting and other door-to-door tactics. Also, how does the national "do not call list" jive with your assessment?

Talk about absurdity - you're saying an airline can't tell a passenger to stop annoying others, but big government can step in and protect us from a ringing telephone?

 

[TWAnr]

Then I don't understand how some neighborhoods have been able to outlaw leafletting and other door-to-door tactics. Also, how does the national "do not call list" jive with your assessment?

Talk about absurdity - you're saying an airline can't tell a passenger to stop annoying others, but big government can step in and protect us from a ringing telephone?

The lady could be ejected if she was disrupting business or harassing passengers; however, the article made no mention of any such problems. Merely expressing a point of view which may not be the same as the agent's or the passengers' does not qualify as such.

In addition, there is a major difference between solicitations at people's PRIVATE homes and distributing literature in an areas which are open for public use. The same rationale goes for calling your personal phone number which is not considered to be an area open to the public.

May I suggest that you read the following United States Supreme Court cases:

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC., AND BRIAN RUMBAUGH, PETITIONERS v. WALTER LEE, SUPERINTENDENT OF PORT AUTHORITY POLICE, 505 U.S. 672; 112 S. Ct. 2711; 120 L. Ed. 2d 541; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 8008,

UNITED STATES v. KOKINDA ET AL., 497 U.S. 720; 110 S. Ct. 3115; 111 L. Ed. 2d 571; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 3460; 58 U.S.L.W. 5013,

And:

BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL. v. JEWS FOR JESUS, INC., ET AL., 482 U.S. 569; 107 S. Ct. 2568; 96 L. Ed. 2d 500; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2619; 55 U.S.L.W. 4855.

You should be able to find them at www.findlaw.com .

 

[Captain Ed]

I remember once in STL, a member of this Krisha group singled me out as I was walking to man the aircraft, and insisted I take this HUGE book. He wouldn't go away or take NO for an answer, so I took it, and off I went, to the outcry of a few of them. I guess they were selling them.

I sold mine at a garage sale the next time I held one.

This Carol Ward is no ordinary woman by the way.

She is a real piece of work.

http://www.carolontheweb.com/

 

[orwell]

The lady could be ejected if she was disrupting business or harassing passengers; however, the article made no mention of any such problems. Merely expressing a point of view which may not be the same as the agent's or the passengers' does not qualify as such.

In addition, there is a major difference between solicitations at people's PRIVATE homes and distributing literature in an areas which are open for public use. The same rationale goes for calling your personal phone number which is not considered to be an area open to the public.

May I suggest that you read the following United States Supreme Court cases:

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC., AND BRIAN RUMBAUGH, PETITIONERS v. WALTER LEE, SUPERINTENDENT OF PORT AUTHORITY POLICE, 505 U.S. 672; 112 S. Ct. 2711; 120 L. Ed. 2d 541; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 8008,

UNITED STATES v. KOKINDA ET AL., 497 U.S. 720; 110 S. Ct. 3115; 111 L. Ed. 2d 571; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 3460; 58 U.S.L.W. 5013,

And:

BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL. v. JEWS FOR JESUS, INC., ET AL., 482 U.S. 569; 107 S. Ct. 2568; 96 L. Ed. 2d 500; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2619; 55 U.S.L.W. 4855.

You should be able to find them at www.findlaw.com .

So, being annoyed in your private home is more egregious than having it done in a public place. I guess I can partially buy it.

However, AA is a private company (discounting the fact that it sells shares) and does not have to tolerate unwelcome advances being made upon its customers.

I don't have time to read a thousand-page legal document, but I'll point out an irony. Had this happened in cruise, and had a crew member asked the woman to relent in her proseletyzing, and had the woman refused, would she not have been breaking the law (not complying with crewmember instruction)?

I reckon some out there would decry such a turn of events as "1st-ammendment rights being trampled at 30,000 ft."

 

[TWAnr]

orwell,

Those cases are only dozens of pages long, not thousands .

All these rulings apply to the exercise of free speech in public areas of airport terminals, not to activities inside private airlines' passengers lounges or on board airplanes or cruise ships.

The issue here is not whether she should have been restricted from showing the poster and talking to military recruits in the gate area (which is controlled by the airline), but whether she could have legally been forcibly ejected from the secure airside of the terminal, which is not under the exclusive control of American Airlines.

 

[mweiss]

This Carol Ward is no ordinary woman by the way.

She is a real piece of work.

Verrrry interesting comment considering its source.