4 ms·
> Presumably, air travel is a privilege, not a right, just like driving a car is. Freedom of movement is a privilege, not a right? What can you possibly be ta
by jMyles 9y ago
> Presumably, air travel is a privilege, not a right, just like driving a car is.
Freedom of movement is a privilege, not a right? What can you possibly be talking about?
Did I miss a memo? The United States (and other common law societies) have a long history of enshrining freedom of movement as a fundamental right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...
Also, be reminded that the USA voted in favor of the UDHR, which reads in part:
* a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others
and
* and that a citizen also has the right to leave any country, including his or her own, and to return to his or her country at any time.
- brokensegue 9y agofreedom of movement \neq freedom to fly though
- my123 9y agoIn a modern society, disallowing to fly doesn't give full movement rights for a person. You are much less likely to travel to Europe if you have to use a transaltlantic boat for example. :p
- brokensegue 9y agoyes but you could say that of cars too (and courts have ruled mandatory DUI tests legal)
- acct1771 9y agoJust because courts have ruled something legal doesn't make it Constitutional. See: 100 mile border zones that are "exempt" from the 4th Amendment. Not to mention, just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
- brokensegue 9y agowhat SCOTUS says defines what is constitutional. you may disagree with their ruling but they are the meaningful authority.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoDUI tests are only mandatory for people driving a car, not for people who are simply traveling in one.
- justinjlynn 9y agofreedom to "use technology" is the freedom to "participate in society" which is the whole point. In the 80s it may have been permissible to ban those convicted of hacking crimes from computers and touch tone telephones, but today?
- brokensegue 9y agoask the supreme court
- justinjlynn 9y agoI'm sure we will.
- neo4sure 9y agoFreedom of movement was a privilege in the old soviet union. Maybe we are slowly becoming the USSR?
- jklinger410 9y agoYou can move, but not necessarily in car. Or on a plane. And you can't walk on the highways or near the rail road tracks or in the road. And you will be stopped if an officer sees you walking alone on a country road. And that's probable cause right there. Don't go wandering in the woods, lots of privately owned property there as well. I'm sorry, you said something about moving?
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoI don't think they can stop you from moving in a car. They can stop you from driving one, though...
- jklinger410 9y agoYes you can pre-arrange a ride. Hitch-hiking is illegal in some states. You can pay for a taxi, buy a train or plane ticket. The latter provided you are not on any lists and don't mind your things being x-rayed and/or searched. Really paying for rides in a car is the last great bastion of free movement (provided you don't get randomly stopped and searched in a checkpoint of some kind) in the U.S. Although, most of those either won't take you on the highway or are prohibitively expensive to do so. Making inter-city and greater travel difficult. But bonus points if you can pay with cash. I understand, though. There are just so many common sense reasons to restrict free travel. How could one resist?
- ianferrel 9y ago> Hitch-hiking is mostly illegal in most states No it isn't. There are only a few states where it's illegal.
- jklinger410 9y agoYou are correct. While it is outright illegal in 6 states and has many different specifications per state, it is not mostly illegal. I have amended my original comment to reflect this after doing some research.
- derefr 9y agoFreedom of movement no more guarantees your right to purchase a ticket aboard a private, commercial flight, than freedom of speech guarantees your right to post to a private, commercial forum. What freedom of movement does guarantee, to be clear, is that you're: 1. allowed to own your own plane; 4. allowed to fly said plane over pretty much any American airspace, other than specific little zones cordoned off by the military; 2. allowed to have your own airfield to launch and land your plane; 3. allowed to use the airfield of any American airport to launch/land your plane (at least in an emergency.) With your own plane—just like with your own car—you have freedom of movement in the US.
- jklinger410 9y agoYou cannot buy a plane and fly it without first asking the government.
- sk5t 9y agoIt is the government, via TSA, ICE, etc., and not Delta or Lufthansa or whoever, that most impedes the feasibility of air travel. Let us put to bed the notion that freedom of movement means only the freedom to walk on foot or to take absurd measures to avoid contracting with private or public entities that exist expressly for the purpose of serving travelers.
- lovich 9y agoThe existence of a pilots license necessary to fly a plane makes this incorrect off the get go
- benchaney 9y ago> Freedom of movement no more guarantees your right to purchase a ticket aboard a private, commercial flight, than freedom of speech guarantees your right to post to a private, commercial forum. It is the government that prevents you from flying on the private commercial airline. Not the airline owner. If the government was preventing people from posting certain messages on private commercial form, that would certainly be a violation of the First Amendment.