Comment by mancerayder
14 hours ago
You definitely don't have the (implied) constitutional right to much on an airplane. Why not wear no shirt, a balaclava and hold up a flag above your head - go ahead and try it. As soon as the plans lands, something terrible will happen to you. In some destinations, even worse things.
The right of free speech is not wholly encompassed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In fact, it's the other way around, it's because the right of free speech is recognized as a universal, natural right then the US Federal Government is not permitted to make a law suppressing speech. The First Amendment does not create the right. The right is there, naturally, whether or not the United States or its constitution or government exists. The First Amendment merely explicitly states that the government isn't permitted to impede that right.
Using the existence of the First Amendment to narrow free speech as a right to what the government is permitted to do and nothing else is a severe perversion of both the document and the beliefs of the framers.
In short, "it's a private entity doing it" is an incredibly poor defense of behavior that suppresses speech. It's like how young children will defend their rude or offensive behavior with "it's not illegal." The reason that's an unconvincing argument is that it's an incredibly low bar. The world is full of behaviors that may not be so universally offensive or outrageous that people have explicitly written down that nobody is every allowed to do that thing. It's actually a very small range of possible behaviors that that covers.
The only reason that there isn't a general law barring private parties from restricting the speech of others is (a) one's right to free speech does not necessarily negate another's rights in the same or a different area, (b) one's rights do not entitle one to the use of things owned by others against their desires, and (c) any such law could be used by the government to indirectly suppress other rights.
The narrow nature of the First Amendment is not to be taken as an implication that the right is narrow. It's an admission that the law cannot perfectly protect human rights.
> The right of free speech is not wholly encompassed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
And there are other human rights besides the right to free speech, which have to be balanced. One of them is the right to safe travel. That means people who are responsible for the safety of a planeload of people have to err very strongly on the side of being safe rather than sorry. And mature adults are suppposed to recognize that fact and not insist on exercising their free speech right everywhere they go, to the detriment of other rights.
I'm sorry, but you're acting crazy if you think someone naming their device "free Palestine" is a credible threat. That's absolutely bonkers
1 reply →
I'm pretty sure Madison would have jailed you if you showed up on his lawn with an "ARSON" sign.
The founders believed in private property rights as much as free speech. Property was even a requirement for voting in most states.
> The founders believed in private property rights as much as free speech
This explains why Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty happily destroyed private property in the Boston Tea Party.
The First Amendment is academic in a country where foreign visitors are expected to hand over their social media history just in case there's criticism of Glorious Leader and the Great Country He Leads.
And Great Leader recently asked social media sites to provide details of critics.
The ship has sailed. The plane has crashed. The party is over.
There may be survivors, but right now it's too early to tell.
The first amendment is indeed concerned only with the US government’s interaction with the matter, as is appropriate, but that does not imply it’s without other limitation. Your list is very broad and covers a wide range of common sense limitations—like, say, that you don’t want somebody in your vehicle harassing you.
Anyway, airlines are hard because the basic problem is they’re public necessity still halfway regarded as private business. It’s also an unnatural situation that many people be forced to share such little space in “public”, and we’d likely have a different constitution were it always the case.
I don’t think this one will be addressed by principle from on high.
That's nice and all, but you're not in the United States when you're on a plane in the air over the ocean. In this particular case, because United Airlines is a US airline, US law will mostly apply, but I'm sure you get the point.