
Man kicked off flight by pilot for wearing anti-TSA shirt - TallGuyShort
http://arijitvsdelta.blogspot.co.uk/
======
awj
I'd imagine the reality here is like many other times someone got "uppity" or
"snarky" with people dealing in public safety: his version of expressing
contempt for the situation was interpreted as belligerence and a lack of
willingness to cooperate in the establishment of security.

I get what he was trying to do. I even _agree_ with his opinions on the
situation. But if that shirt represents the attitude he held in the whole
encounter, it's _no surprise_ things went to shit.

~~~
saraid216
> But if that shirt represents the attitude he held in the whole encounter,
> it's no surprise things went to shit.

It's not surprising, but it's also not right.

Cops who don't know how to deal with an antagonistic attitude aren't really
useful anywhere that deals directly with the public.

~~~
awj
I agree, they aren't. But here we're talking about TSA agents (who more or
less acted appropriately, in my opinion) and Delta employees. I expect neither
of these to perform well when balancing public safety against antagonistic
attitudes. Especially the Delta employees.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
> _we're talking about TSA agents (who more or less acted appropriately, in my
> opinion)_

yes... the TSA acted appropriately because they were the only ones that
ignored his attire (poking fun at the TSA even) and focused on checking that
he had absolutely nothing on his person or in his luggage that would be a
threat. It was the Airport Police and Delta Agents... both of which should be
well trained in dealing with the volatile public since their jobs often
involve dealing with the volatile public.

------
Bud
I don't see why pilots need to have the power to boot passengers. At all.
That's why TSA supposedly exists. Racist objections from passengers should not
be able to lead to other passengers getting booted from flights.

~~~
chiph
It's because when the plane pushes back from the gate, the pilot is in charge
and is responsible for the safety of everyone aboard. Much like how a captain
at sea is responsible for everyone on board his ship (and is held accountable
should tragedy strike).

It's not a republic or democracy when you're on his plane. What he says, goes.

~~~
Bud
That's not a why. That's just you stating the fact, and it's non-responsive to
my question.

In this case, the plane had not pushed back from the gate. The pilot kicked
this guy off before the flight. I think it's reasonable to ask why a random,
unjustified passenger complaint to the pilot should override the TSA's
screening process.

~~~
chiph
Because he says so.

------
dhimes
What an immature little creep. There are plenty of people who are nervous
about flying but who have to do so anyway due to family or business or what-
have-you. So he shows up in this shirt-- why?? What's _really_ the point? To
get in the TSA workers' faces? To look like a tough guy to the scared grandma,
who needed one less thing to worry about on the flight? Fuck off.

Kudos to the pilot who made a decision based on the comfort of the passengers.
Let him walk. It's the same decision pilots make when they dodge a little
turbulence. Safety? Not at all. Comfort of the passengers. Easing their mind.
Pure and simple.

~~~
Bud
I think you're ranting, and did not actually read the article. This guy
clearly did _not_ have the objective of "getting in the TSA workers' faces";
the article clearly states that he had already cleared the TSA checkpoint
without incident, and was then challenged by a Delta supervisor.

It sounds to me, based on all the facts we have available, that someone got in
this guy's face. Not the other way around.

So basically, you are making up your entire argument.

~~~
dhimes
Nope. You are reading _his_ story without thinking. I don't buy his story.
He's a punk who was getting off on the whole idea of what he was doing. There
are three possibilities in this case:

(1) he woke up, possibly hung over, and dressed without thinking;

(2) he deliberated picked his shirt _knowing_ he would be dealing with TSA
agents, etc. (in your _face!_ ) and possibly knowing that he would make some
folks nervous and not giving a shit; or

(3) he made the choice in #2 but _with the aim to antagonize_ \-- in essence,
psychologically bullying those around him (Oh, I'm not scared, are you?).

I figure that if it was #1 the blog post would have bee a whole lot different.
The best I can allow him is that it was a move of immaturity. I am not
applauding, regardless of my stance on the TSA and their practices.

------
rm999
His point isn't particularly controversial, air security has gone too far.

But he was looking for trouble by wearing that shirt, in his words mocking the
"over-reactions to terrorism by the general public". He comes off as an angry
person who doesn't sympathize with the genuine (and obvious) fears people may
have. Ultimately he weakens his own point by acting so ridiculous; he gave the
TSA and Delta a reason to mess with him.

~~~
mturmon
You can wear the shirt, but you can't be surprised when they single you out
for more security checks. (Recognition and response to specific potential
threats is what critics of "security theater" want, anyway.)

Once you get the check, which was not unexpected, you should expect that if
you are perceived as smarting off, then the situation will get worse. Since
they have all the power, it can get arbitrarily bad.

Given that this could have been foreseen, expressions of surprise and
incredulity in the post don't make sense.

There is a place for this kind of protest. But if you want to advance the
cause of freedom of expression, you have to be disciplined when the process
you helped start starts unfolding. Do you have a strategy in this protest, or
are you acting out feelings about authority figures?

If you're just acting out feelings, you're playing into their hands. The guard
will be "stern daddy" (he took this job to play that role) and you will be
"misunderstood child." Everyone cries in the end, but nothing changes.

 __*

I went to a how-to on public protests ran by an AIDS activist who was one of
the key organizers of many ACT-UP protests in NYC in the late 80s. The
particular protest that he discussed was the 1989 demonstration in St.
Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, which made the national news, and has been a
touchstone since
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_Coalition_to_Unleash_Power...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_Coalition_to_Unleash_Power#.22Stop_the_Church.22)).

According to the activist, this was a protest in which the personal
feelings/animosity of many activists there towards the church, made the entire
action not as productive as it should have been, and just generally a messy
affair. (Protesters breaking communion wafers, etc. -- means nothing to me,
but to a believer, it's a big deal.)

It's a complex topic. I came out of the workshop with a greater appreciation
of how much focus and discipline it takes to really bring about change.

~~~
mikeash
"You can wear the shirt, but you can't be surprised when they single you out
for more security checks. (Recognition and response to specific potential
threats is what critics of "security theater" want, anyway.)"

What? No. No, no, no. What we want is recognition and response to _actual
threats_ , not knee-jerk responses to anything unusual or non-conformist.

A shirt like this doesn't indicate a threat. Smart security would not single
it out.

~~~
mturmon
I said "specific potential threats". Not "threats". I agree, the man is not an
actual threat, and the agents should have seen that as well, eventually. Their
failure to move on is a problem, but they did not write a blog post asking for
sympathy.

A red shirt with the words, "bomb", "kill", and "blood" is something that will
get you noticed. It is not just "unusual or non-conformist", it specifically
references security concerns -- the agents would be derelict in their duty to
not take an extra look. They tell you not to joke about bombs for a reason! It
is almost literally waving a red flag in front of a bull.

That's why he wore it, right? Why else would a person wear such a shirt?

I'm just saying, if one does this, one has to think ahead.

I enjoy your blog, by the way.

~~~
mikeash
Thanks for your comment on the blog. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but
I thought you were pointing to the behavior of security people in this case as
something that critics of "security theater" would prefer to see, when it's
not at all the case.

------
bithive123
Last time I went through airport security the TSA agent kept pestering me to
empty my pockets, after I found a dollar bill in one. When I produced a
kleenex (tissue), he got all indignant "You can have nothing in your pockets,
sir! That's not nothing, it's something!" so I placed it in a plastic bin and
told him "here, you can scan that."

I was really annoyed but I knew they stopped exercising any judgement at all
when they made it illegal to bring a bottle of water through security, even if
everyone is 100% certain that it contains only water.

Unfortunately the airport is not the place for this kind of activism. This
should be as self-evident as the TSA's idiocy.

------
ww520
The terrorists have won. Americans have lost their way of life.

~~~
dhimes
This has nothing to do with that. It's like wearing a t-shirt saying "rape is
underrated" to a home for battered women. It's thoughtless and selfish and not
funny.

And for reasons I stated elsewhere, the pilot made the right call, especially
from a business perspective.

~~~
readymade
A shirt mocking the TSA doesn't come close to that analogy, even if you
consider it bad taste, since it doesn't legitimize, condone or make light of
terrorism. If it said "Terrorism rules!", then perhaps you'd have a point,
although it's still a stupid reason to put him through what they did,
especially considering his ordeal did not end with agreeing to change his
clothes.

~~~
dhimes
You have a point about the analogy I struck- it's not the one I intended. My
analogy was intended as the thoughtless act of wearing the shirt, not the
relationship of what the shirt condoned.

Once the other passengers are upset, it's the pilot's call. Same will happen
on a boat or a bus. If you upset the other passengers you get to find some
other means of getting where you are going.

The pilot made the right call. It sounds like he was only kicked off of one
flight. That's fair.

------
ghshephard
While, I understand on principle why he thinks he should be allowed to fly
wearing any political statement he wishes - it's the kind of principle I had
when I was less than 30. Nowadays, I completely understand and appreciate why
passengers don't want to fly on a plane with someone who was wearing a shirt
that had the phrases, "Moisture BOMBS", "Terrorists gonna kill us all", "Alert
Level Blood Red."

At a certain point, you really don't want, "that guy" flying on your plane,
and I'm happy the pilot made the call he did.

In the future - perhaps different attire might be considered before boarding a
plane.

~~~
Bud
I feel uncomfortable boarding planes with guys wearing NASCAR hats, subtly
racist tattoos, etc.

Can I get those passengers kicked off, too? Or is it only non-white liberals
who get booted?

~~~
powertower
What do NASCAR hats and racist tattoos have to do with this?

This person knowing full well about the hysteria around terrorism, bombs, and
air flights went out of his way to cause an incident, and is now complaining
about "white racists", unfair treatment, and the airlines.

All he had to do was show up dressed in a normal tee-shirt. But this wasn't
good enough for him. He had to make a statement. In a cramped space of an
airplane, of all the places. And it turns out the other people didn't get his
joke.

~~~
Bud
They have a lot to do with it, actually. My point is that if some speech,
communicated by wearing a T-shirt and _nothing_ else, is actionable, then
perhaps other forms of speech should be actionable, too.

This person did _not_ "go out of his way" to cause an incident. He wore a
T-shirt and that is all he did.

"Making a statement" is ok. This is America. We supposedly protect that right,
even when we do not agree with the statement in question.

"Hysteria" resulting from events that happened 11 years ago and which will
never occur again is not an excuse for abandoning that principle.

~~~
DanBC
You do not stand in a theatre and shout "fire!" unless there is a fire.

You do not use the "bomb" word in an airport, unless you suspect something is
a bomb.

How many people need to be pulled off flights for people to understand that
sometimes you just don't need to wear the t-shirt (that looks creepily white
power) covered in BOMB DEATH KILL.

~~~
glenra
> You do not stand in a theatre and shout "fire!" unless there is a fire.

Do you realize that that particular constructed example comes from an argument
that _protesting the draft_ should be illegal?

(Incidentally, Penn Jillette quite regularly stands in his theater and shouts
"fire!" when there is no threat. Most people aren't idiots most of the time,
so it's not a problem.)

> How many people need to be pulled off flights for people to understand that
> sometimes you just don't need to wear the t-shirt (that looks creepily white
> power) covered in BOMB DEATH KILL.

Maybe it needs to keep happening until our airport cops realize they're being
idiots and return to dealing with _actual security threats_. Assuming they can
find any.

------
cwisecarver
The morale of the story is don't fly Delta.

They're a business and they have every right to throw someone off the plane to
enhance passenger comfort. He made it through the TSA checks so we can't blame
them. The only way to explain to Delta that you don't want your freedom of
expression or speech violated is to not fly on their planes. Let all the
passengers that want to overreact to a t-shirt, something completely benign,
fly Delta and everyone else can fly one of the other carriers.

Everyone's freedom stays intact.

------
dstroot
Never, ever, interfere or make light of their mission to prevent water from
flying!

Never mind the fact that I am drinking my "bomb juice" to slake my thirst. Or
take off my belt, shoes, jacket and remove my laptop (but not my iPad) to have
them "screened" by experts.

I think Arijit just made the no-fly list.

:)

------
mbesto
Can we seriously stop with this stuff on HN...

~~~
tylermauthe
Tend to agree... I go to reddit to waste time reading about this sort of
thing...

------
jack-r-abbit
Hmmm.... it just occurred to me... what do you think would happen if they
threw the man off because he was wearing a clown outfit? That seems pretty
ridiculous to me. But let's consider the number of people that have a genuine
fear of clowns. Is it still ridiculous? I still think so. But if this was all
about making sure that _all_ of the passengers felt comfortable, then it would
seem perfectly acceptable to toss a man for dressing like a clown. But that
does not seem acceptable at all. Just like when Billie Joe Armstrong got
tossed because his pants were saggy[1]. And he's a god damn rock star!

[1][http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/billie-joe-armstrong-
kic...](http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/billie-joe-armstrong-kicked-off-
southwest-flight-saggy/story?id=14445274#.UDVyE1SEC3o)

------
r00fus
I wonder if he would have gotten on the plane by just wearing a "TSA can go
grope themselves" shirt without the word "bombs" and other uncomfortable
trigger words.

I'm pretty sure everyone hates the TSA - if it's made funny or largely
agreeable it becomes a real test of their authority.

Then again, I wouldn't have the guts to do what this guy or the guy who got
naked did.

------
criveros
This is not hacker news.

------
downwithmycrew
Just wear a plain tee.

~~~
swdunlop
Or fly naked.

[http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-18/travel/travel_oregon-
airp...](http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-18/travel/travel_oregon-airport-
naked-protest_1_airport-screeners-tsa-oregon-airport?_s=PM:TRAVEL)

