12 ms·

> This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. To add more credence to your point, let's not forget this beautiful line in TFA | Durin

> This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. To add more credence to your point, let's not forget this beautiful line in TFA | During this incident, a Wi-Fi hotspot named "Free Palestine, F Zionists" prompted the pilot to issue a warning to the cabin, telling the passenger responsible that they had "30 seconds" to remove the name or the FBI would meet the aircraft. This is clearly not a threat. I'm not trying to make a political statement and not going to say what side of this issue I'm on, but whatever your side is you have the right to express it. There's no threat in this WiFi name. You can, and should be able to, name your WiFi hotspot anything. Even any "Free <X>, Fuck <Y>" forall X,Y. Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech and there's no clear and credible threat in this statement. We've just grown accustomed to security theater. Don't forget, this security theater has resulted in more deaths than 9/11 ever did[0,1,2] [0] Indirectly. The friction in air travel leads to more people driving, which is objectively a more deadly form of travel. We're talking several orders of magnitude, so even a low percentage of people shifting from air travel to car means substantial numbers. That means your risk of dying or being injured in a car crash also increases because it means more people are on the road. It's not a function of how good of a driver you are, it is a function of how good of a driver they are. So you really do want more people flying [1] https://www.govexec.com/management/2012/11/tsa-killing-us/59651/ https://www.govexec.com/management/2012/11/tsa-killing-us/59... [2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=677549 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=677549

Balgair 5mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings Just greping for 'Israel' or 'Palestine' gives 13 incidents, the latest occurring in 2000. It's a quite large share of the hijackings on the list, much more so that I'd have imagined de novo. Reading through a few of them, most of the hijackers had a fair bit of mental instability (duh?). So, I could totally see them naming a bluetooth something crazy if they had them those days. Also, most of the incidents ended up being fairly well handled and there weren't many casualties. But if I were a pilot and I were getting paid regardless of turning the plane around or dealing with a possibly fatal multi-day saga, I'd likely just turn the plane around too.
- punkyblewster 5mo ago
  Let's get real. This was a pilot using authority granted to them for security purposes to punish somebody whose politics they disliked. The pilot should be fired effective immediately.
  - slater 5mo ago
    How would the pilot know the perp's political leanings...? edit: oh you mean the "f z" guy
  - soderfoo 5mo ago
    I would be a bit more charitable in assigning motive for the pilot's actions. Airline pilots are morally and physically responsibile for the lives on their aircraft. This necessitates respect for their authority. Like other professionals, they must compartmentalize personal beliefs and professionalism. Playful antics and silly BS, whether it be for the lulz, politics, or anything else, is a disrespectful act of defiance to the individuals you entrust to deliver you safely to your destination. They are the final authority in flight, and have broad discretion they must exercise prudently with a bias for risk aversion. I've known 2 airline pilots. They are the most even keeled people I've ever come across. Literally, the coolest and calmest people. The system (should) weed out anyone who would act unprofessional, like letting their political beliefs cloud their judgment.
    - godelski 5mo ago
      > Oh believe me, I would if I could... Over a tacky free Palestine protest? > The system (should) weed out anyone who would act unprofessional, like letting their political beliefs cloud their judgment. The system should weed out anyone allowing themselves to become upset at a tacky device name. I mean talk about crazy
  - strictnein 5mo ago
    It's interesting that you know what the pilot was doing and why they were doing it. Anyways, there's zero chance the pilot will be fired. Pilot unions are incredibly powerful and go to bat to protect their members.
anigbrowl 5mo ago
Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithstanding that I agree with theparticular sentiment expressed. > you have the right to express it Out in public sure. In an airplane you're in someone else's private space (ie the airline's) and everyone is not only confined with you in minimal comfort, they have no way to leave. Trying to 'own' the space in this context is a dick move. If I'm a traveling passenger I don't want to be subject to your political ideas/religious sentiments/music preferences/sporting affiliation or whatever else. Besides the irritation it may or may not inflict on other passengers, it's an unnecessary burden for the flight crew, who are going to have to field any complaints about it. In short, please stow your rights in the overhead container or in your checked baggage and respect other peoples' right to be left alone.
- virgil_disgr4ce 5mo ago
  > Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this Ah yes, the classic "your politics," but of course the person having this opinion's politics are perfectly fine, because they're the "normal" person with the "normal" politics, not like that crazy person who thinks some randos shouldn't be the subject of genocide. How dare they!
  - MobiusHorizons 5mo ago
    I believe the idea is that no one should be declaring their political beliefs loudly in such an environment regardless of how “normal” they are. I’m not sure broadcasting a WiFi endpoint meets my threshold for “loudly”, but otherwise I tend to agree.
    - moi2388 5mo ago
      Believing you do not have the right to name your Bluetooth what you want is also a political belief.
    - idle_zealot 5mo ago
mancerayder 5mo 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.
- da_chicken 5mo ago
  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.
  - pdonis 5mo ago
    > 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.
umpalumpaaa 5mo ago
I see what you are saying but then where do you draw the line? What if the wifi name is “fuck all pilots” - “united is doomed” or “we will all die”?
- kingofmen 5mo ago
  Not OP, but why draw a line for WiFi names at all? Do you think an actual terrorist goes around drawing attention like that?
  - srean 5mo ago
    Propaganda is a very important part of terrorism so I would not put that past them. Imagine the headlines if something like that does happen in the future. In short, a Pascal's wager and a demonstration that it is not easy to have good things.
  - steve1977 5mo ago
    That's not even necessary. The fact that it could create panic is enough. And by the way, a terrorist is (by definition) someone who wants to incite terror in others. So any person knowingly broadcasting "we will all die” is a terrorist already.
    - godelski 5mo ago
      You think... a device named "Free Palestine, F Israel" could... create panic? I'm sorry, that is crazy. Only a crazy person would panic over that
      - steve1977 5mo ago
        I don't fly very often, but every time there's at least one person I would consider crazy enough for that.
        godelski 5mo ago
        Then at put that person in jail, not the person with the tacky device name. Do you hear yourself? You're saying we should be irrational because there's irrational people. That we should send people to jail because they might upset an irrational person? You're sending the wrong person to jail. Are you crazy?
pdonis 5mo ago
> This is clearly not a threat. To you, who made up the scenario and specified that it's not a threat, sure, it seems that way. To the pilot of an airplane full of people whose safety he is responsible for, even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention to. In real life you don't get to specify what "clearly" is or is not the case. People have to make judgment calls, and in certain contexts they are going to err very strongly on the side of being safe rather than sorry. > Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech This is not a free speech issue. This is a safety and consideration for others issue. The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects that saying certain things is going to have in certain contexts. We're all supposed to be responsible adults who understand that we can't push our pet issues everywhere we go. > We've just grown accustomed to security theater. Easy for you to say since you're not the one responsible for the safety of a planeload of people. This is not a "security theater" issue either. You don't have the right to trumpet your pet issue everywhere you go.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
  >even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention What if it had been named "Teddy Ruxpin is my friend", but the pilot doesn't know whether that's a secret code for "I'm going to release aerosol sarin nerve gas on the plane"? Should he react to all messages as if they are threats, because no matter how small the risk is, more than zero is too much? If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat. Anything else leads to absurd outcomes that make it harder to protect from real threats. >The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects What are the predictable effects for the scenario in question? Please enlighten us, because most of us are apparently unable to predict those ourselves.
  - pdonis 5mo ago
    > What if it had been named "Teddy Ruxpin is my friend", but the pilot doesn't know whether that's a secret code for "I'm going to release aerosol sarin nerve gas on the plane"? I'm unable to find any connection between Teddy Ruxpin and sarin gas online, so I don't see why a pilot would make such a connection. Am I missing something? > If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat. Have you ever been in a position where you were responsible for the safety of several hundred people? > What are the predictable effects for the scenario in question? That not turning that Bluetooth device off when told to was going to end up delaying the flight.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
akudha 5mo ago
Does naming WiFi hotspot to reflect one’s political views achieve anything? I am not against free speech or expression of freedom, just wondering if such “protests” (assuming that is what this is) have any affect at all? Flying is already a stressful experience - between security checks, waiting for flights, unruly passengers, super cramped seats etc. Why add more stress? Either protest seriously at an appropriate time/place or just use the airport for what it is, to go to your destination. Why get cute with ineffective methods of protest like changing WiFi name? In the end, all it achieved was hours of delay and even more stress to passengers, right?
- ffaccount2 5mo ago
  Well we're talking about this now, so this was actually effective. The point of talking about something is to make people aware of the issue. For example I don't leave my house often, so a walking protest in the middle of a city has zero chance to reach me. HN post does.
- godelski 5mo ago
  If they aren't actively harming people nor threatening to do so with their words then that's their right. Can by tacky or in bad taste, why's that matter? It's not harming anyone and is a bad WiFi name even meaningfully annoying?
  - Scroll_Swe 5mo ago
    It's the woke shit behind it that is annoying. Would you say the same if it praised Israels bravery? Honoured Charlie Kirk? Said anything you don't agree with?
    - somehnguy 5mo ago
      Yes, I would. Because it’s just words. Beyond that, it’s words you don’t even have to look at. You would be choosing to repeatedly read the list of WiFi networks.
    - godelski 5mo ago
teiferer 5mo ago
> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech While I agree with you that this was obviously a ridiculous overreaction, an air plane is not a public space. It's more akin to being in someones living room in that the pilot has absolute authority over whom to kick out for whatever reason. If they don't like your hair, they can have you escorted out by police if you don't comply. They won't do it normally because it's bad PR and their employer wouldn't like it, but they could. Not free speech amendment violated.
- imoverclocked 5mo ago
  This. Many people are unaware of just how much authority a captain has; Failing to follow their instructions is (basically) a felony. It's best to just not mess around on an aircraft.
  - joxdosba 5mo ago
    Am a pilot, this is totally wrong. PIC authority is strictly limited to in-scope items, this very obviously wasn’t in scope unless it was e.g. causing other passengers to behave in an unruly manner.
    - tefkah 5mo ago
      thanks for clarifying, this whole thread was sounding a bit ridiculous
    - imoverclocked 5mo ago
      The Pilot in Command (PIC) holds absolute, ultimate responsibility and final authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft. Also, in another reply you state, "aircrew has actual legal authority which stems from the fact that they’re aircrew." Do your pilot credentials include an ATP cert?
      - joxdosba 5mo ago
        I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. PIC has authority over things which relate to the operation of the aircraft, yep. The PIC does not get to make a passenger blow him, just like he can’t come read your emails if he feels like it. The PIC might not like a shirt you’re wearing, he can’t make you take it off. >Do your pilot credentials include an ATP cert? I’m lacking on the 1500 hours, but other than that, yeah.
latexr 5mo ago
> I'm not trying to make a political statement and not going to say what side of this issue I'm on, but whatever your side is you have the right to express it. Maybe, maybe not. The Supreme Court of the USA has ruled that speech is not protected at all times and in all places. There are “time, place, and manner restrictions”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Time,_place,_and_manner_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... I have a hard time believing courts wouldn’t side with the captain here. All they have to say is they are in charge, perceived a threat to their crew, provided a chance for resolution, and ultimately played it safe. All of which are true.
stef25 5mo ago
[flagged]
- gpt5 5mo ago
  > a plane half full of Hasidic Jews (the ones refusing to board because they're still praying and knocking their head against the wall, and refuse to sit next to women). I don't know why you've decided to explain what is a Hasidic jew in that way (or at all). However I hope you can at least understand in retrospect why describing a religious group as people who all follow some negative behavior is promoting hate towards all members of that group, regardless of their actions.
  - stef25 5mo ago
    I have no hate against any kind of jew, muslim or soccer team.
    - gpt5 5mo ago
      Looks like I was wrong in my last statement above. unfortunately you didn’t understand (or chose to ignore) why your comment is promoting hate.
  - throw368498 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - stef25 5mo ago
      You're completely wrong. What I wrote was based on my own observations and just to illustrate that those guys seem quite radical and absolutely would heavily object to offensive hotspot or bluetooth device names.
Neil44 5mo ago
It's not a direct threat but it is a passive one, it's also swearing and a contentious statement in a confined space where everyone needs to get along for the next N hours. They know damn well what the issue is but they're going to put their hands up and claim they're just expressing an opinion and they're not hurting anyone. It's childish behavior imo.
- watwut 5mo ago
  The issue is censorship of opposition to genocide. True unambigous political censorship
  - Neil44 5mo ago
    There are numerous spaces and opportunities for you to express your opinions. In fact almost anywhere else (in the US anyway)
    - watwut 5mo ago
      Except that this exact thing is the exact thing being censored everywhere around US. Second, you know full well such name is not a threat, neither passive no active. The reason for that being not allowed is not a threat or abundance of other options. It has nothing to do with any of that. It is just a continuation of the above strategy.
alterom 5mo ago
>During this incident In case you missed it, it was a different incident than the one we're discussing. >You can, and should be able to, name your WiFi hotspot anything. Even any "Free <X>, Fuck <Y>" forall X,Y Edgy idea, bro. Not like a certain terrorist organization[1] with Palestine Liberation in its name[1] literally pioneered armed airplane hijackings for its cause, successfully[2] performing[3] quite[4] a few[5] of[6] them[7] back in the day. > whatever your side is you have the right to express it. You seem to have confused an airplane for a public square. The captain of the plane determines the extent of your rights in-flight, taking many factors into account. Including the comfort of passengers. You ain't got no "free speech" right to blast music on your Bluetooth speaker, and the same applies to edgy Bluetooth device names which everyone on board can see. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberati... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_426 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_426 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_(1969) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_(1969) [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_426 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_426 [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Airways_Flight_255 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Airways_Flight_255 [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_649 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_649
- imetatroll 5mo ago
  The person you are replying to is all over this thread to such an extent that I think they should take their abundance of energy and apply it to becoming a commercial pilot so that they can ignore anything that aligns with their personal preferences.
- sdthjbvuiiijbb 5mo ago
  >Not like a certain terrorist organization[1] with Palestine Liberation in its name[1] literally pioneered armed airplane hijackings for its cause, successfully[2] performing[3] quite[4] a few[5] of[6] them[7] back in the day. And? What's your point? You're implying that a pro-Palestine WiFi network name could even slightly plausibly be interpreted as a threat to hijack an airplane? You can't be serious. Also, the whole idea of being over backwards trying to stretch things into being interpreted as threats is absurd on its face. A threat is pretty much definitionally intended to be understood as a threat. As a side note, why is it that in these discussions some people are so quick to equate anything critical of Israel with antisemitism, but we never see much push back in the other direction? I find your insinuation that expressing support for Palestine means you want to hijack an airplane to be wildly racist.
Scroll_Swe 5mo ago
You do know that "zionists" is a code work for jews in general right? A zionist is someone who thinks Israel has a right to exist. Then I am a zionist and I am white as snow.
- defrost 5mo ago
  Not all Jews are Zionists .. so they are not equivalent words. eg: https://www.jewishcouncil.com.au/who-we-are https://www.jewishcouncil.com.au/who-we-are
  - throw368498 5mo ago
    To the antisemites it’s the same thing. I can point you to threads here on HN where negative things are said about Jews and the term “Zionists” is used interchangeably with “Jews”.
    - defrost 5mo ago
      Misuse by idiots doesn't make them equivalent terms.
      - throw368498 5mo ago
        Depends on who’s saying it. Often times it’s obvious from the context that “Zionist” is just being used as a loophole, and pretending that the difference is then still important is disingenuous.
        defrost 5mo ago
        What's your position here? Are Jew and Zionist equivalent words in your opinion?
        throw368498 5mo ago
        Someone writing “F Zionists” very likely does not make a distinction between Zionists and Jews. The Jewish Council of Australia is not going to name their hotspot “F Zionists”. Ultra Orthodox Jews are not going to use swear words to express their view. I’ll go as far as say that anyone who genuinely wants Jews and Arabs to live in peace side by side is not going to go about it with antagonistic one-sided rhetoric.
thrownthatway 5mo ago
[flagged]
gorgoiler 5mo ago
I don’t disagree with you but it’s worth remembering your rights are very different onboard a crewed commercial vessel. As I understand it if a member of crew tells you to do something and you don’t do it, you’re in trouble.
inoffensivename 5mo ago
> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech The First Amendment only prevents the government from penalizing your speech. It doesn't stop a private company (airline) kicking you off an airplane for something you said or did. The PIC (Pilot In Command, aka Captain) is the final authority for the safe operation of the flight (14 CFR Part 91.3). If the Captain determines that a threat exists, they are empowered to do pretty much anything reasonable to deal with the threat. Turning the plane around and landing is certainly in the realm of "reasonable". Whether you or somebody else who is clearly not an airline captain feel the original actions constituted a threat is pretty much irrelevant. Signed, airline captain.
- incognos 5mo ago
  It is also their right to sue you for abuse of authority if it is proven that said captain abused their authority. Say if said captain was a zionist and decided to take it out on that person by abusing their authority. Having authority does notmake you blameless, there is still a responsibility attached to that authority.
- godelski 5mo ago
  > It doesn't stop a private company Read the story a bit more. There's the FBI and TSA being involved *which are government agencies*. There is a big difference between "getting kicked off the plane" and "getting kicked off the plane and getting arrested". > they are empowered to do pretty much anything reasonable to deal with the threat Someone naming their phone "Free Palestine, F Israel" is not a threat. Full stop. I don't care what your politics are, that is not a reasonable nor credible threat. If there was a credible threat the conversation would be different, but it is a tacky political statement.
  - inoffensivename 5mo ago
    > Someone naming their phone "Free Palestine, F Israel" is not a threat. Full stop. The bluetooth device's name was BOMB. We're trained to treat even vague threats seriously. The captain in this case is in a terrible situation. Do nothing, get pilloried for not taking action. Turn around, get pilloried for that. I hope I'm never in this position because there are really no good options. All of you making comments have not been in this position, and were not there at the time with the information the captain had access to, and so are not in a position to judge the decision.
kmeisthax 5mo ago
> The friction in air travel leads to more people driving Y'know, if America didn't treat intercity passenger rail like garbage, we wouldn't be having this problem...
rconti 5mo ago
this is one of those "if you see something, no you didn't" times. It seems to me like the fault lies more with the reporter.
tim-tday 5mo ago
People who feel strongly about those political views routinely murder, rape, kidnap and bomb. Being on a plane does 100% change the calculus of free speech. You can’t say something that threatens the life and safety of the people trapped on there with you. This is literally one of the canonical acceptable limits to free speech. It is typically presented as “shouting fire in a crowded theater”

Balgair 5mo ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings Just greping for 'Israel' or 'Palestine' gives 13 incidents, the latest occurring in 2000. It's a quite large share of the hijackings on the list, much more so that I'd have imagined de novo. Reading through a few of them, most of the hijackers had a fair bit of mental instability (duh?). So, I could totally see them naming a bluetooth something crazy if they had them those days. Also, most of the incidents ended up being fairly well handled and there weren't many casualties. But if I were a pilot and I were getting paid regardless of turning the plane around or dealing with a possibly fatal multi-day saga, I'd likely just turn the plane around too.

punkyblewster 5mo ago
Let's get real. This was a pilot using authority granted to them for security purposes to punish somebody whose politics they disliked. The pilot should be fired effective immediately.
- slater 5mo ago
  How would the pilot know the perp's political leanings...? edit: oh you mean the "f z" guy
- soderfoo 5mo ago
  I would be a bit more charitable in assigning motive for the pilot's actions. Airline pilots are morally and physically responsibile for the lives on their aircraft. This necessitates respect for their authority. Like other professionals, they must compartmentalize personal beliefs and professionalism. Playful antics and silly BS, whether it be for the lulz, politics, or anything else, is a disrespectful act of defiance to the individuals you entrust to deliver you safely to your destination. They are the final authority in flight, and have broad discretion they must exercise prudently with a bias for risk aversion. I've known 2 airline pilots. They are the most even keeled people I've ever come across. Literally, the coolest and calmest people. The system (should) weed out anyone who would act unprofessional, like letting their political beliefs cloud their judgment.
  - godelski 5mo ago
    > Oh believe me, I would if I could... Over a tacky free Palestine protest? > The system (should) weed out anyone who would act unprofessional, like letting their political beliefs cloud their judgment. The system should weed out anyone allowing themselves to become upset at a tacky device name. I mean talk about crazy
- strictnein 5mo ago
  It's interesting that you know what the pilot was doing and why they were doing it. Anyways, there's zero chance the pilot will be fired. Pilot unions are incredibly powerful and go to bat to protect their members.

anigbrowl 5mo ago

Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithstanding that I agree with theparticular sentiment expressed. > you have the right to express it Out in public sure. In an airplane you're in someone else's private space (ie the airline's) and everyone is not only confined with you in minimal comfort, they have no way to leave. Trying to 'own' the space in this context is a dick move. If I'm a traveling passenger I don't want to be subject to your political ideas/religious sentiments/music preferences/sporting affiliation or whatever else. Besides the irritation it may or may not inflict on other passengers, it's an unnecessary burden for the flight crew, who are going to have to field any complaints about it. In short, please stow your rights in the overhead container or in your checked baggage and respect other peoples' right to be left alone.

virgil_disgr4ce 5mo ago
> Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this Ah yes, the classic "your politics," but of course the person having this opinion's politics are perfectly fine, because they're the "normal" person with the "normal" politics, not like that crazy person who thinks some randos shouldn't be the subject of genocide. How dare they!
- MobiusHorizons 5mo ago
  I believe the idea is that no one should be declaring their political beliefs loudly in such an environment regardless of how “normal” they are. I’m not sure broadcasting a WiFi endpoint meets my threshold for “loudly”, but otherwise I tend to agree.
  - moi2388 5mo ago
    Believing you do not have the right to name your Bluetooth what you want is also a political belief.
  - idle_zealot 5mo ago

mancerayder 5mo 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.

da_chicken 5mo ago
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.
- pdonis 5mo ago
  > 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.

umpalumpaaa 5mo ago

I see what you are saying but then where do you draw the line? What if the wifi name is “fuck all pilots” - “united is doomed” or “we will all die”?

kingofmen 5mo ago
Not OP, but why draw a line for WiFi names at all? Do you think an actual terrorist goes around drawing attention like that?
- srean 5mo ago
  Propaganda is a very important part of terrorism so I would not put that past them. Imagine the headlines if something like that does happen in the future. In short, a Pascal's wager and a demonstration that it is not easy to have good things.
- steve1977 5mo ago
  That's not even necessary. The fact that it could create panic is enough. And by the way, a terrorist is (by definition) someone who wants to incite terror in others. So any person knowingly broadcasting "we will all die” is a terrorist already.
  - godelski 5mo ago
    You think... a device named "Free Palestine, F Israel" could... create panic? I'm sorry, that is crazy. Only a crazy person would panic over that
    - steve1977 5mo ago
      I don't fly very often, but every time there's at least one person I would consider crazy enough for that.
      - godelski 5mo ago
        Then at put that person in jail, not the person with the tacky device name. Do you hear yourself? You're saying we should be irrational because there's irrational people. That we should send people to jail because they might upset an irrational person? You're sending the wrong person to jail. Are you crazy?

pdonis 5mo ago

> This is clearly not a threat. To you, who made up the scenario and specified that it's not a threat, sure, it seems that way. To the pilot of an airplane full of people whose safety he is responsible for, even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention to. In real life you don't get to specify what "clearly" is or is not the case. People have to make judgment calls, and in certain contexts they are going to err very strongly on the side of being safe rather than sorry. > Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech This is not a free speech issue. This is a safety and consideration for others issue. The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects that saying certain things is going to have in certain contexts. We're all supposed to be responsible adults who understand that we can't push our pet issues everywhere we go. > We've just grown accustomed to security theater. Easy for you to say since you're not the one responsible for the safety of a planeload of people. This is not a "security theater" issue either. You don't have the right to trumpet your pet issue everywhere you go.

NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
>even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention What if it had been named "Teddy Ruxpin is my friend", but the pilot doesn't know whether that's a secret code for "I'm going to release aerosol sarin nerve gas on the plane"? Should he react to all messages as if they are threats, because no matter how small the risk is, more than zero is too much? If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat. Anything else leads to absurd outcomes that make it harder to protect from real threats. >The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects What are the predictable effects for the scenario in question? Please enlighten us, because most of us are apparently unable to predict those ourselves.
- pdonis 5mo ago
  > What if it had been named "Teddy Ruxpin is my friend", but the pilot doesn't know whether that's a secret code for "I'm going to release aerosol sarin nerve gas on the plane"? I'm unable to find any connection between Teddy Ruxpin and sarin gas online, so I don't see why a pilot would make such a connection. Am I missing something? > If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat. Have you ever been in a position where you were responsible for the safety of several hundred people? > What are the predictable effects for the scenario in question? That not turning that Bluetooth device off when told to was going to end up delaying the flight.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

akudha 5mo ago

Does naming WiFi hotspot to reflect one’s political views achieve anything? I am not against free speech or expression of freedom, just wondering if such “protests” (assuming that is what this is) have any affect at all? Flying is already a stressful experience - between security checks, waiting for flights, unruly passengers, super cramped seats etc. Why add more stress? Either protest seriously at an appropriate time/place or just use the airport for what it is, to go to your destination. Why get cute with ineffective methods of protest like changing WiFi name? In the end, all it achieved was hours of delay and even more stress to passengers, right?

ffaccount2 5mo ago
Well we're talking about this now, so this was actually effective. The point of talking about something is to make people aware of the issue. For example I don't leave my house often, so a walking protest in the middle of a city has zero chance to reach me. HN post does.
godelski 5mo ago
If they aren't actively harming people nor threatening to do so with their words then that's their right. Can by tacky or in bad taste, why's that matter? It's not harming anyone and is a bad WiFi name even meaningfully annoying?
- Scroll_Swe 5mo ago
  It's the woke shit behind it that is annoying. Would you say the same if it praised Israels bravery? Honoured Charlie Kirk? Said anything you don't agree with?
  - somehnguy 5mo ago
    Yes, I would. Because it’s just words. Beyond that, it’s words you don’t even have to look at. You would be choosing to repeatedly read the list of WiFi networks.
  - godelski 5mo ago

teiferer 5mo ago

> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech While I agree with you that this was obviously a ridiculous overreaction, an air plane is not a public space. It's more akin to being in someones living room in that the pilot has absolute authority over whom to kick out for whatever reason. If they don't like your hair, they can have you escorted out by police if you don't comply. They won't do it normally because it's bad PR and their employer wouldn't like it, but they could. Not free speech amendment violated.

imoverclocked 5mo ago
This. Many people are unaware of just how much authority a captain has; Failing to follow their instructions is (basically) a felony. It's best to just not mess around on an aircraft.
- joxdosba 5mo ago
  Am a pilot, this is totally wrong. PIC authority is strictly limited to in-scope items, this very obviously wasn’t in scope unless it was e.g. causing other passengers to behave in an unruly manner.
  - tefkah 5mo ago
    thanks for clarifying, this whole thread was sounding a bit ridiculous
  - imoverclocked 5mo ago
    The Pilot in Command (PIC) holds absolute, ultimate responsibility and final authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft. Also, in another reply you state, "aircrew has actual legal authority which stems from the fact that they’re aircrew." Do your pilot credentials include an ATP cert?
    - joxdosba 5mo ago
      I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. PIC has authority over things which relate to the operation of the aircraft, yep. The PIC does not get to make a passenger blow him, just like he can’t come read your emails if he feels like it. The PIC might not like a shirt you’re wearing, he can’t make you take it off. >Do your pilot credentials include an ATP cert? I’m lacking on the 1500 hours, but other than that, yeah.

latexr 5mo ago

> I'm not trying to make a political statement and not going to say what side of this issue I'm on, but whatever your side is you have the right to express it. Maybe, maybe not. The Supreme Court of the USA has ruled that speech is not protected at all times and in all places. There are “time, place, and manner restrictions”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Time,_place,_and_manner_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... I have a hard time believing courts wouldn’t side with the captain here. All they have to say is they are in charge, perceived a threat to their crew, provided a chance for resolution, and ultimately played it safe. All of which are true.

stef25 5mo ago

[flagged]

gpt5 5mo ago
> a plane half full of Hasidic Jews (the ones refusing to board because they're still praying and knocking their head against the wall, and refuse to sit next to women). I don't know why you've decided to explain what is a Hasidic jew in that way (or at all). However I hope you can at least understand in retrospect why describing a religious group as people who all follow some negative behavior is promoting hate towards all members of that group, regardless of their actions.
- stef25 5mo ago
  I have no hate against any kind of jew, muslim or soccer team.
  - gpt5 5mo ago
    Looks like I was wrong in my last statement above. unfortunately you didn’t understand (or chose to ignore) why your comment is promoting hate.
- throw368498 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - stef25 5mo ago
    You're completely wrong. What I wrote was based on my own observations and just to illustrate that those guys seem quite radical and absolutely would heavily object to offensive hotspot or bluetooth device names.

Neil44 5mo ago

It's not a direct threat but it is a passive one, it's also swearing and a contentious statement in a confined space where everyone needs to get along for the next N hours. They know damn well what the issue is but they're going to put their hands up and claim they're just expressing an opinion and they're not hurting anyone. It's childish behavior imo.

watwut 5mo ago
The issue is censorship of opposition to genocide. True unambigous political censorship
- Neil44 5mo ago
  There are numerous spaces and opportunities for you to express your opinions. In fact almost anywhere else (in the US anyway)
  - watwut 5mo ago
    Except that this exact thing is the exact thing being censored everywhere around US. Second, you know full well such name is not a threat, neither passive no active. The reason for that being not allowed is not a threat or abundance of other options. It has nothing to do with any of that. It is just a continuation of the above strategy.

alterom 5mo ago

>During this incident In case you missed it, it was a different incident than the one we're discussing. >You can, and should be able to, name your WiFi hotspot anything. Even any "Free <X>, Fuck <Y>" forall X,Y Edgy idea, bro. Not like a certain terrorist organization[1] with Palestine Liberation in its name[1] literally pioneered armed airplane hijackings for its cause, successfully[2] performing[3] quite[4] a few[5] of[6] them[7] back in the day. > whatever your side is you have the right to express it. You seem to have confused an airplane for a public square. The captain of the plane determines the extent of your rights in-flight, taking many factors into account. Including the comfort of passengers. You ain't got no "free speech" right to blast music on your Bluetooth speaker, and the same applies to edgy Bluetooth device names which everyone on board can see. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberati... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_426 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_426 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_(1969) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_(1969) [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_426 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_426 [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Airways_Flight_255 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Airways_Flight_255 [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_649 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_649

imetatroll 5mo ago
The person you are replying to is all over this thread to such an extent that I think they should take their abundance of energy and apply it to becoming a commercial pilot so that they can ignore anything that aligns with their personal preferences.
sdthjbvuiiijbb 5mo ago
>Not like a certain terrorist organization[1] with Palestine Liberation in its name[1] literally pioneered armed airplane hijackings for its cause, successfully[2] performing[3] quite[4] a few[5] of[6] them[7] back in the day. And? What's your point? You're implying that a pro-Palestine WiFi network name could even slightly plausibly be interpreted as a threat to hijack an airplane? You can't be serious. Also, the whole idea of being over backwards trying to stretch things into being interpreted as threats is absurd on its face. A threat is pretty much definitionally intended to be understood as a threat. As a side note, why is it that in these discussions some people are so quick to equate anything critical of Israel with antisemitism, but we never see much push back in the other direction? I find your insinuation that expressing support for Palestine means you want to hijack an airplane to be wildly racist.

Scroll_Swe 5mo ago

You do know that "zionists" is a code work for jews in general right? A zionist is someone who thinks Israel has a right to exist. Then I am a zionist and I am white as snow.

defrost 5mo ago
Not all Jews are Zionists .. so they are not equivalent words. eg: https://www.jewishcouncil.com.au/who-we-are https://www.jewishcouncil.com.au/who-we-are
- throw368498 5mo ago
  To the antisemites it’s the same thing. I can point you to threads here on HN where negative things are said about Jews and the term “Zionists” is used interchangeably with “Jews”.
  - defrost 5mo ago
    Misuse by idiots doesn't make them equivalent terms.
    - throw368498 5mo ago
      Depends on who’s saying it. Often times it’s obvious from the context that “Zionist” is just being used as a loophole, and pretending that the difference is then still important is disingenuous.
      - defrost 5mo ago
        What's your position here? Are Jew and Zionist equivalent words in your opinion?
        throw368498 5mo ago
        Someone writing “F Zionists” very likely does not make a distinction between Zionists and Jews. The Jewish Council of Australia is not going to name their hotspot “F Zionists”. Ultra Orthodox Jews are not going to use swear words to express their view. I’ll go as far as say that anyone who genuinely wants Jews and Arabs to live in peace side by side is not going to go about it with antagonistic one-sided rhetoric.

thrownthatway 5mo ago

[flagged]

gorgoiler 5mo ago

I don’t disagree with you but it’s worth remembering your rights are very different onboard a crewed commercial vessel. As I understand it if a member of crew tells you to do something and you don’t do it, you’re in trouble.

inoffensivename 5mo ago

> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech The First Amendment only prevents the government from penalizing your speech. It doesn't stop a private company (airline) kicking you off an airplane for something you said or did. The PIC (Pilot In Command, aka Captain) is the final authority for the safe operation of the flight (14 CFR Part 91.3). If the Captain determines that a threat exists, they are empowered to do pretty much anything reasonable to deal with the threat. Turning the plane around and landing is certainly in the realm of "reasonable". Whether you or somebody else who is clearly not an airline captain feel the original actions constituted a threat is pretty much irrelevant. Signed, airline captain.

incognos 5mo ago
It is also their right to sue you for abuse of authority if it is proven that said captain abused their authority. Say if said captain was a zionist and decided to take it out on that person by abusing their authority. Having authority does notmake you blameless, there is still a responsibility attached to that authority.
godelski 5mo ago
> It doesn't stop a private company Read the story a bit more. There's the FBI and TSA being involved *which are government agencies*. There is a big difference between "getting kicked off the plane" and "getting kicked off the plane and getting arrested". > they are empowered to do pretty much anything reasonable to deal with the threat Someone naming their phone "Free Palestine, F Israel" is not a threat. Full stop. I don't care what your politics are, that is not a reasonable nor credible threat. If there was a credible threat the conversation would be different, but it is a tacky political statement.
- inoffensivename 5mo ago
  > Someone naming their phone "Free Palestine, F Israel" is not a threat. Full stop. The bluetooth device's name was BOMB. We're trained to treat even vague threats seriously. The captain in this case is in a terrible situation. Do nothing, get pilloried for not taking action. Turn around, get pilloried for that. I hope I'm never in this position because there are really no good options. All of you making comments have not been in this position, and were not there at the time with the information the captain had access to, and so are not in a position to judge the decision.

kmeisthax 5mo ago

> The friction in air travel leads to more people driving Y'know, if America didn't treat intercity passenger rail like garbage, we wouldn't be having this problem...

rconti 5mo ago

this is one of those "if you see something, no you didn't" times. It seems to me like the fault lies more with the reporter.

tim-tday 5mo ago

People who feel strongly about those political views routinely murder, rape, kidnap and bomb. Being on a plane does 100% change the calculus of free speech. You can’t say something that threatens the life and safety of the people trapped on there with you. This is literally one of the canonical acceptable limits to free speech. It is typically presented as “shouting fire in a crowded theater”