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.

---

Quote:

---

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

Really. Chrisisall

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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"

---

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.

---

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?

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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?

---

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.

---